User talk:Handthrown/Archive 1

Archive 1

Handthrown, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Handthrown! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like 78.26 (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:03, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Handthrown, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Unseen character RfC

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 13:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Response to your comments in the Unseen character RfC

Oh no! I wrote all that off-site, and then entered it without noticing that MMeyers has left a scold on my own talk page, suggesting that I am not “cool” in his words. And now I see he is suggesting that I am uncivil and should bow out of this discussion until I know what I’m doing. That seems brutal, MMeyrs, and I don’t think I deserve that. Your claim is that I took “umbrage” at your suggestion regarding nominating the article for deletion — that is not true. I simply pointed out that I don’t think it’s a good idea that this article should be nominated for deletion — not by me or by anyone. Please consider that we seem to be in absolutely perfect agreement on that issue. We agree. Where’s the umbrage in agreeing with you? I never want to be accused of being “uncivil”. And if that is your entire case, then will you reconsider? However, I will be glad to go away with absolutely no hard feelings, as always, if only because I never want to be where I am not welcome. Handthrown (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I am responding here so as not to further distract from the issue of the RfC. Please accept the following comments as they are intended, which is in no way to upbraid you or attack you, but instead to help you, a new member of this community, learn to contribute as constructively as possible.

• First, you said "I think this article right now is not contributing anything, and should be taken away and if someone can fix it “off stage” then bring it back on." On Wikipedia, there is no "off-stage" to take articles that need improvement, articles in Article Space either exist and are fully visible, or they do not exist at all (There is a "Draft" namespace, but it is for new articles only, not a place to push existing articles that need improvement). For any existing article that should not be fully visible, there is really only one recourse, which is to delete the article. There is a set procedure to do so, which is for someone to nominate that article for deletion of WP:AFD. Whether you intended to or not, your comment that the article was no contributing anything and needed to be taken offstage was a suggestion that the article be deleted, that's the only possible interpretation for it in the Wikipedia environment. So, that's one example where your inexperience and unfamiliarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures led to miscommunication.
• Second, one of the 5 Pillars, or fundamental principles of Wikipedia is that we all treat each other with respect and civility. It's not just to make everyone feel good, it's because animosity leads to edit wars and bickering an a whole host of things that get in the way of our purpose here, which is to write an encyclopedia. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors who interact here don't know each other in real life, and communicate only through written word. As the policy on Civility says "Faceless written words on talk pages and in edit summaries do not fully transmit the nuances of verbal conversation, sometimes leading to misinterpretation of an editor's comments. An uncivil remark can escalate spirited discussion into a personal argument that no longer focuses objectively on the problem at hand. Such exchanges waste our efforts and undermine a positive, productive working environment." So, sarcasm that one might be able to get away with in the real world or on internet forums elsewhere is a complete no-go here. A comment like yours "If you want to discuss this any further please take it up with Mmeyres1976. Just please go easy on him, because he means well" just comes across as very condescending, it doesn't encourage mutual respect and collegial cooperation (there were other similar comments, but that's a good example). I've seen people, otherwise good editors with helpful edits, get blocked because they insert that kind of sarcasm into a discussion, which ticks off another person who responds in kind or slightly worse, and it escalates from there. I don't want to see that happen to you, because I can tell you aren't a troll and you honestly want to make the encyclopedia better, you have good writing skills, and you show an interest in the editing process that indicates you could become an excellent editor here once you understand the policies, guidelines. So, just be aware of your tendencies towards snark, and expel that from your writing here. And if you do slip up, like we all do on occasion when we get frustrated, just apologize for it and return to civil discussion, and most people are happy to move on. Even if someone reports you, it would be exceedingly rare for an admin to block you for something you had already sincerely apologized for before he got involved. The best way to avoid that from the very beginning is to be like Spock or Data from Star Trek, very impassive and unemotional, with a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of personality when you're discussing here.
• Third, Wikipedia has three Core Content Policies: Neutral Point of View, Verifiability, and No Original Research Allowed. All three policies are interconnected, but the latter two especially so. Anything we put into an article has to be verified by Reliable Sources, and we can't use a reliable source to draw a conclusion that is not explicitly stated by that source, because that would be a special form of Original Research called Synthesis. For instance, your position on Unseen character is that we should take a general definition of "unseen character", and then we should apply it to specific characters like Maris Crane, decide whether or not they meet that general definition, and then call them unseen characters based on that. That is not allowed, it is taking what one source says and using it to make a personal judgement about something not mentioned by the source, it is Original Research, and therefore a violation of Wikipedia policy that prohibits Original Research, including Synthesis.

That's a point-by-point of the main issues with your editing that came up in the Unseen character RfC. As you continue editing, there are going to be other policies you'll inadvertently run afoul of, and that's okay, you're new, you're still learning, and most editors are going to understand that and cut you some slack. When they do bring something to your attention, such as a policy you are indicating a lack of awareness of, but especially if you weren't as civil as you could have been, do remember that you are new and inexperienced, and there is a very good chance they do have more experience than you and know policy better, so instead of getting defensive, or continuing to argue your position, stop and take the time to really read through the policy they are quoting to you. Make sure you thoroughly understand it. There are also a lot of good essays that help further explain policies and guidelines. After you have done that, if you think they are the ones not understanding the policy, point out specific quotes from the policy that you think support your interpretation, and have a civil conversation on that. Well, I hope all this has been helpful for you, if you have any further questions about this, or even any issue in the future, even one I am not involved in, please feel free to ask me on my Talk page. I've been here 9 years and managed to keep my nose clean with no blocks or other sanctions, and have learned a lot about policies and procedures while having a good time, and I'm happy to share what I've learned with you. There are also a lot of other great ways to seek advice from more experienced editors. Some of these are introduced through the Welcome template, which I see no one has Welcomed you (only gave you a link to the Teahouse, but that's a good place to learn, too), so allow me to officially Welcome you to Wikipedia. Mmyers1976 (talk) 16:05, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Mmyers, thank you for the message. When I respond to you, as I am now, I hope it “comes off” as I intend, and that is with all kinds of good will, and not meaning anything to be any kind of “attack”. If my words are ever taken any other way, it’s never meant, though perhaps it’s my fault for not writing in a manner more inviting of people’s good faith. I enjoy hearing your views, and participating in the exchanges that we have had. I have complimented you, not by name, but I referred to you on the talk page as a good editor, and one who made a strong point. I think though that there has been a misunderstanding, and I would like to try to clear it up. I may have thought that the article should be deleted, and that may have been reflected in what I said, but then when I read your response I was persuaded, I thought you were right, and I was glad to agree with you. There are various reasons for my not wanting to nominate the article for deletion, and they are supported by your own very effective argument, your own words. When I responded to you I thought I’d point that out and I referred to your words as “exhibit A”, which I thought was a pertinent point that you contributed to the discussion. However, in trying to understand the misunderstanding right now, I think that when a person quotes another person (as I did) back to them, it could be taken as a rejection (on my part) of those words. Perhaps? Which I didn’t at all mean, in fact I meant the opposite.

About your second point, when I said "If you want to discuss this any further please take it up with Mmeyres1976 …” etc. — I was responding, as you recall (I hope) to your suggestion that that editors are not allowed to make choices. Frankly, I disagree with that, and I consider that the “discussion question” that you yourself posed was itself asking editors to make a choice. Which made me wonder if your own sense of humor was showing? After all, you ask editors to choose, and then suggest that they should not choose. It seemed to me that you were contradicting yourself, and I assumed that you must have some logic behind it, so I pointed it out, and I expected that you might respond in some way that I would certainly deserve for my poor sense of humor. Of course teasing if it’s done well it can seem friendly and sporting, but it can also easily come off as idiotic, rude and horrible. You can judge the effect was “uncivil”, as you did, but it was not meant that way. None of us, of course, really knows each other, but I admire you for the long history of serious work that you’ve done for Wikipedia, and for your discussion in the Unseen character talk page. You write well, and your comments are expressed with appealing color and personality. I like what you have to say, and I enjoy the exchanges we’ve had. That article appears to have had an awful history, and now finally some serious editors, yourself particularly included, have come to the rescue and are trying to make something good.

About your third point, my view is not as you state it (you’ve got the cart before the horse). It is instead this: When editing the article on Unseen characters, we should have a good definition, which is properly supported etc., and which should be stated in the lede, and then the examples that follow should support the lede. The recent change to the lede is more restrictive, I don’t think the sources that are cited intended to so restrict “all Unseen characters everywhere”. I’m concerned that such a restriction may have unintended consequences in the future. For example, it may raise arguments against the inclusion of some significant examples that were in the past included when the lede was simpler. This discussion, though, definitely belongs not here but on the talk page, and I think that are worth being heard by others and being discussed. Not that my ideas are all that great, but there do not seem to be very many of us bothering to seriously think about these issues. That’s why I ask if you would please reconsider asking me to stay away.

Finally, you seem to think, if I read you correctly, that when I wrote I was “taking umbrage”, and I want to assure you that I never felt that, and would never in a million years express any kind of anger on any page of Wikipedia. I appreciate that you cared enough to take the trouble to leave this a message on my talk page, and as I said I admire you and I enjoy our discussions. I certainly will try not to tease you again. But, Mmyers, you don’t need to worry about me getting angry, you can of course always speak freely to me, nothing you ever say will make me mad. Handthrown (talk) 15:11, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

It does sound now like there was just a lot of misunderstanding, not deliberate attempts to be uncivil, and I appreciate your response here, I'm glad we cleared all that up and can move on.

One thing you said just now was "After all, you ask editors to choose, and then suggest that they should not choose. It seemed to me that you were contradicting yourself, and I assumed that you must have some logic behind it." An explanation of that is that, to borrow from Robert McClenon (a very senior editor/admin who runs WP:DRN and is well versed in all the dispute resolution processes) "there is a certain naming oddity about RFCs. It officially stands for Request for Comments, ...(h)owever, the primary use of the RFC process isn't as a request for comments, but a request for consensus." What that basically boils down to is this: while it is understandable that you as a newcomer would see an RfC as an invitation of "hey, what do people think of this?", what it really is, is an editor (like me) is having trouble with other editors who are editing against policy, and so in effect is asking "hey, uninvolved experienced editors, can you please come in and confirm to these people what I'm saying about policy?"

On the issue of the third point, did you happen to get around to reading the Dispute Resolution discussion from 2015 that I posted a link to? If not, here is the link: LINK. Steve Zhang gives a really good explanation of why the definition in the lede really doesn't matter for the purposes of deciding whether or not to include a character as an example. He basically says "we don't decide whether or not a character is an unseen character, reliable sources do. So if reliable sources say a character is an unseen character, it is, and is admissable, regardless of whether it meets our definition of one." Steve Zhang isn't just some random editor, or even a random administrator, he's a former high-ranking employee of the Wikipedia foundation who redesigned many of the project's current dispute resolution processes, and is a member of Wikipedia Australia's committe, and was its president for two years. So, if there is any one person whose words on this issue should be considered authoritative, it's him. I encourage you to read what he said. Here are some of his key statements (I've bolded especially pertinent parts):

• "As Wikipedians, it's our role to report on what reliable sources say about a subject, and not necessarily to argue or debate over the content of said reliable sources."
• "I think we come back to the point about us stating what references state, rather than our interpretation. The lede of the article or the top of the "examples" section" could have something along the lines of "X a claim/state/give Rosaline in William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet as an unseen character, as she is never seen, but is only described." Or go with something similar. This can sometimes be a reasonable compromise. By doing this, we aren't making assumptions, but stating what sources say."
• "I think we should try and change it to something we can all live with, but I disagree a straight dictionary definition is the way to go here, though we do need something in the article title to describe the concept of an unseen character. If we have sources that describe the concept (which we do, as per 99.192), I would suggest we use those as the basis for the definition in the article title. For inclusions on the list however, we go with citing reliable sources that describe the inclusions as unseen/invisible characters - because it's the reliable sources role to interpret the part characters play in the respective works and determine if they fit the definition, and not ours."
• "It is still our role as Wikipedians to cite reliable sources that cite the respective characters as an example of an unseen character and not to synthesise that because X character did y and z that they are unseen character (as another but unrelated example, we do not take the fact that someone like Osama Bin Laden was responsible for bombings and state as a result "Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist", we state "Osama Bin Laden has been described by xyz sources as a terrorist"." Mmyers1976 (talk) 19:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. I think that some of our discussions belong on the talk page of “Unseen Character”, and I just now thought I should contribute more of an explanation regarding the survey on that page. I read the discussion that you referred to. It’s interesting to me that such a VIP of Wikipedia rolls up his sleeves and gets involved in a minor dispute, as though he were just another editor. Good for him. It only shows — you never know who might be out there participating. The discussion itself may not have been worthy of the opportunity, because it had limited participation, it seemed to be a bit “wild” so to speak, and it did not come to a conclusion. Thank you for sharing Steve Zhang’s comments, I thought they were good. Handthrown (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Collapsing your comments

You created a whole new section where you discussed the Lede source in full detail, therefore it does not need to be in the RfC, where it is redundant and off topic, since the RFC is on the examples, not the definition. Collapsing offtopic or redundant comments is allowed under the talk page guidelines: "Off-topic posts: If a discussion goes off-topic (per the above subsection How to use article talk pages), editors may hide it using the templates {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}} or similar templates". I've already given you a lot of leeway in comments you have made in the RfC that have strayed from the RfC quite a bit, it is unreasonable of you to expect that you can discuss your new issue in both the RFC AND in the new section you set up. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

There is also a practical reason for collapsing your comments - raising the same issue twice may cause two parallel conversations about the same issue, impeding progress on coming to consensus on it. Collapsing the other comments in the RfC ensures no one will respond to them there, and instead will respond to them in the new thread, making sure there is one unified coherent conversation on your new issue. Don't you think that's better? Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

ANI Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 04:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Archive 1