Jump to content

User talk:Kotniski/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7

The Wikipedia Signpost: 2 August 2010

The Wikipedia Signpost: 9 August 2010

Title/consistency

Greetings! As you've been involved in discussions about which "Consistency" wording more accurately describes actual practice in WP in the past, I thought you would be interested in this latest discussion, and in particular this post from User:Fuhghettaboutit who notes: "In practice, at numerous move request discussions, we ignore consistency between similarly situated articles where overarching concerns of whether something is the common name, whether is it precise, and whether it is ambiguous crop up. We defer to these policy concerns over consistency in almost all cases, and so this change had consensus long before it was codified". What do you think of that? Your input at the discussion (which is now an RFC) will be valued. Thanks! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Regarding your move [1], there is a related discussion at [2]. This is just to inform you of this discussion, you did nothing wrong. Regards Skäpperöd (talk) 12:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Sawoniuk

There are actually sources which show that he was of Polish nationality (for example the one which states that he was "Polish-born") but I can live with the lede being worded as it now. --Varsovian (talk) 14:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Please, would you care to explain what did you mean by edit summary stating "put it here just to keep the nats happy". IMO such remarks are overstepping Good Faith. Remember - WP:NPOV and WP:AGF. Just a friendly remark.Lokyz (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Good faith has long ago been exhausted by certain types of editor. Poles, Germans, Lithuanians, Irish, Welsh, English - probably every other nation as well, somewhere - they all produce their minorities of transparently nationalist-POV-pushing editors who drive out the good editors, try to shape Wikipedia according to their own biased world view, and unfortunately are tolerated and allowed to roam and feed free on this project. If they get the occasional mild insult from the well-meaning editors whom they are in the process of driving to breaking point, I guess it's a lot less than they deserve. --Kotniski (talk) 05:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 August 2010

As you'd responded to this at an earlier date, I think your attention and participation is invited here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Bot question

Hello Kotniski. Do you still operate your bot? I noticed many Polish county (powiat) articles miss map in their infobox. At PL wiki, it seems almost every powiat has map in infobox. It seems like an easy task, so I was wondering if Kotbot could check/compare EN and PL wiki articles and add maps where missing. Regards. - Darwinek (talk) 11:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yes, I think when I originally created the powiat infoboxes I transferred the maps from the Polish articles, but no doubt since then many more maps have been added over there. I'll have a look when I get some time - should be quite easy to do.--Kotniski (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, it should be okay now. - Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Seredžius

In so far as I respect your contributions to Wikipedia on the whole, I've been dismayed by some of your contributions to the Seredžius article and its talk page. You tend to be a more serious, fair, and level headed contributor in similar disputes than some others that I've dealt with in the past. Frankly I was surprised that you continue to defend a largely untenable position, and that you even started it up again to begin with. Be that as it may, I look forward to pursuing a positive relationship with you on Wikipedia in the future (even if not at that article). There will undoubtedly be other cases to deal with. Respectfully. Dr. Dan (talk) 01:55, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Funnily, that also expresses almost exactly what I feel about your contributions there.--Kotniski (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!

What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
For saving the day at {{Symphonies by number and name}}. JaGatalk 08:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Queen Victoria

I'm sick of Victoria being a proxy that is constantly brought up in any other dispute about article naming. It's been almost three years since there's been a discussion of this at Talk:Victoria of the United Kingdom. Why don't you propose a move, we have a vote on it, and settle it? I suspect you would win. john k (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking about proposing a move, though perhaps not of Victoria in isolation - I consider "Name of Realm" an equally bad format for nearly all other numberless monarchs, though for most of them there isn't such an attractive alternative as plain "Queen Victoria". So I had been thinking of proposing either a move of the English ones all together (Stephen/John/Anne/Victoria), or else an RfC on a wholesale change to the convention as regards this class of monarchs. I don't share your confidence that "I would win", though - I rather foresee a long campaign of resistance by diehards which would ensure no consensus was reached for any change to the status quo. --Kotniski (talk) 15:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
My general feeling is that the community is moving towards your point of view on this - witness the multiple failed Lord Byron nominations before this last one succeeded, for example. I tend to think starting with Victoria makes the most sense, since "Queen Victoria" is relatively unambiguous (the only other one is Queen Victoria of Sweden, Gustaf V's wife, so this is clearly a primary usage, at least until Carl XVI Gustaf dies). The other cases are a lot less clear cut. There's tons of people known as "King John" (2 in France, 1 in Scotland, 2 in Castile, 2 in Aragon, 6 in Portugal, 1 in Saxony, several in Scandinavia, 3 in Poland, 2 in Hungary, 1 in Bohemia) or Queen Anne (there are five other Queen Anne's in England alone, and 3 in France). While Queen Victoria redirects to Victoria of the United Kingdom, King John, Queen Anne, and King Stephen are disambiguation pages. john k (talk) 16:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know about that. It would presumably be a choice between Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Queen Anne of Great Britain (or the present title), unless someone comes up with another proposal - then the question of whether to treat cases like Victoria the same as those, or to break consistency and use the more natural form when it's available.--Kotniski (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Seems like you've thought about it a bit, so I'll let you do what you want. I do think you'll be less likely to get any consensus by proposing a series of moves than by doing a single one. I'll wait to see what you propose. In general, I have an aversion to the title before the name form for substantive titles. "Prince X of Y" or "Grand Duke Z of Q" is generally used for cadets, not rulers. But it wouldn't be the end of the world if we got a consensus for that. And there certainly is a problem with titles like John of England, which is just totally confusing and ambiguous (I don't think Victoria of the United Kingdom is all that confusing - it's ugly, but most people are going to know what is meant; "John of England" is just puzzling.) john k (talk) 17:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Strange, I'd have said it was the other way round (perhaps because we're far more used to hearing people described as king/queen of England - even when not technically accurate - than of the UK), but I certainly don't like "John of England" either. When I get round to proposing something (if someone else doesn't beat me to it), I'll certainly let you know.--Kotniski (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Administrative update

Hello Kotniski. There will be some changes with Polish municipalities since 1.1.2011, e.g. several villages will be given town status. See, here. Do you think we should wait till 1.1.2011 with corresponding changes on wiki? Thanks. - Darwinek (talk) 09:24, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, well, we could update the articles to say that they are going to become towns, and then on Jan 1st update them again to say that they are now towns.--Kotniski (talk) 11:13, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 August 2010


Speedy deletion nomination of Zakrzewo Górne

A tag has been placed on Zakrzewo Górne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article consists of a dictionary definition or other article that has been transwikied to another project and the author information recorded.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. JDavid (talk) 10:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spieprzaj dziadu! (2nd nomination)

Thanks for your input regarding the above AFD and Dr. Loosmark. What worries me about this AFD (and its previous history of EEML involvement) is that an AFD should involve relatively random and generally neutral editors giving their opinions. With Polish articles, what happens too often is that nationalist editors miraculously descend on a page and exert their will. Regarding Loosmark in particular, he has previously backed up Radeksz and so any involvement by him rings an alarm bell in my mind - see here for example. I do not believe this AFD will attract solely neutral editors :( Malick78 (talk) 12:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Raul654/Raul's laws#Laws by others

See my recent addition of yours. You might like to reformat your name and/or rename the law. Peter jackson (talk) 15:01, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'd forgotten I'd said that... Interesting page.--Kotniski (talk) 16:08, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 6

What exactly is the deal with Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Kotbot 6? While you created it and are listed as the prospective operator, you created it with signatures for User:Dr. Blofeld in place and he has been acting like he is the owner. Just now he has thrown some sort of tantrum and blanked the page; I have reverted it, but if you do not want to pursue the request anymore just say so and we can mark it withdrawn. Anomie⚔ 20:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

It was really Dr Blofeld who created it - he must have just made a mistake with the listing, putting the request directly onto WP:RFBA rather than create a subpage, so I corrected that. It's really his project, but I've agreed to program and run the bot if the task gets approval. --Kotniski (talk) 20:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
Ok, I see now. Since Dr. Blofeld doesn't seem interested in discussing his proposed creations with the enwiki community, I'll mark it withdrawn in a little while unless you say otherwise. Anomie⚔ 20:33, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Mmm, its just I had this bad feeling like with the geobot proposal of having to justify myself to the "community" and face all sort of moaning about the creation of auto generated content that's all. Also you didn't comment Kot or add anything further on your talk page about how it would be done so I got the impression your heart was not really in it. I do thinkwe could get support for this and it would save a massive amount of time but I need your support and that of others. Dr. Blofeld 12:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). If there is support i'll reopen the proposal, as long as you honestly have no problem in transferring them and are willing to discuss the proposals later at BAG. Dr. Blofeld 13:18, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

It has been mentioned at the village pump that the new articles should also be linked to the relative Oxford Dictionary biography articles externally. Could you please comment to develop the discussion and how this could be done. Dr. Blofeld 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why won't you say anything? Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite busy with other things at the moment... But the idea seems to be gaining support at VP, so I think I'd be able to do the bot work once it's decided exactly what is to be done.--Kotniski (talk) 07:15, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

British monarchs move

Hey Kotniski, I actually voted for your move proposal this time. I'm surprised myself. john k (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow, so am I... I'm surprised there hasn't been more opposition, in fact. I'm wondering if my contemplated proposal regarding the numberless monarchs will be as well supported... --Kotniski (talk) 06:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2010

The Signpost: 6 September 2010

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 September 2010

Thanks for bringing that up btw

... at WP:MOSSHIP. I'm not into naming conventions as much as I used to be, I'd like to hear what people say about this. - Dank (push to talk) 12:48, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Research about virtual communities

I am doing a research about virtual communities for my doctorate. I would like to study how the members define norms for the community. I would appreciate your contribution for my research. If I agree to participate, I will send you the questions. Jmbbmj (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

closing own requests?

Any chance you could comment on my proposal to explicitly allow for nominators to withdraw their own page move requests (currently, technically, it's disallowed as "involved users" are not supposed to close RM discussions)? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikiksiążki

Jeżeli znajdziesz jeszcze chwilę, fajnie byłoby, gdybyś spojrzał przed północą na moje dodatki w haśle o konkursie chopinowskim. Dzięki i pozdrawiam Gregory of nyssa (talk) 18:46, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom as an admin action review body

I just read your comments on VPP and thought I'd comment here. As you may have noticed, the number of cases that ArbCom is handling has dropped appreciably over the last couple of years with more and more stuff being handled by the community, which is great as far as my colleagues are concerned. Unfortunately, the rump of cases going to ArbCom are of ferocious complexity and astonishing nastiness and involve issues the community has been completely unable to resolve. Uninvolved admins tend to run a mile from them and those that do get involved often soon walk away because of the welter of accusations they personally face. This comes on top of a serious shortage of admins prepared to undertake this kind of work. That, I'm afraid, is the present reality.  Roger Davies talk 08:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll second Roger's comment on this point. For confirmation, take a look at the historical list of completed cases from a few years back, and ask yourself what percentage of them would wind up at arbitration today. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 September 2010

Subtitles on Wikipedia

Hi Kotniski. Do you know if this is being taken forward? The village pump discussion has now been archived. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, ideas like this usually need to be brought up several times before anything actually happens (if indeed anything ever does happen). Probably best to leave it a few weeks then raise it again with more concerete suggestions.--Kotniski (talk) 08:49, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Concrete proposal at ships?

Do you want to propose something concrete at ships? Not sure if there is anything that will definitely get consensus support. Anyway, I'm going to back off a little there for now, let others weigh in, but let me if something comes up. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:06, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2010

Koninki

Any chance you can transwiki this from polish wiki?♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Wikicleaner Error?

Just my error. Actually, all of my mistakes are mine and mine alone. Wikicleaner is simply a faster way to load and edit pages. Nothing really more than that. Thanks for catching the mistake. --User:Woohookitty Disamming fool! 09:00, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 October 2010

Kotbot 5

Hi, I was curious how did you get the coordinates for the Romanian villages that you use in this run. Thanks.--Strainu (talk) 11:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I think they were already in the articles, in coord templates, as here. Maybe I imported some of them from Romanian Wikipedia, though I don't remember doing that.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Known for vs. Known as

Seeing as the discussion at WP:AT has been collapsed, I thought I'd respond here to your comment that

I don't think we two are ever going to agree about this, but I think the peerage title is not generally the optimal form of disambiguation - in most cases, the person is far better known for what they did before gaining the peerage than for holding the peerage title (and if it's a man, then they're almost certainly not known as "Baron", but "Lord", when the title is used).

Maybe I can never convince you of anything, but I think you are comparing apples and oranges here, contrasting "what they did before gaining the peerage" with "holding the peerage title". What about people who are well known for "what they did after gaining the peerage", like Valerie Amos, Baroness Amos, or, for that matter, Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston. Amos and Palmerston are not best known "for holding the peerage title" in the way that, say, Andrew Cavendish, 11th Duke of Devonshire is best known for being the Duke of Devonshire. That latter is a fairly rare attribute, and probably only applies to holders of important historical titles in the upper ranks of the hereditary peerage. For the vast majority of life peers, and most of the best known hereditary peers, the question of whether they are known for being peers is totally irrelevant. The important question is what they are best known as. Baroness Amos isn't best known for "holding the peerage title", but rather for being a British politician in the House of Lords. She is known as Baroness Amos, but that is a different question than being known for being Baroness Amos. When it comes to disambiguation, I think we should generally disambiguate by an alternative name someone is also known as before we go to disambiguating by what they are known for. If we are talking about an otherwise unused middle initial, that is one thing, but life peers generally are actually referred to by their peerage title. I also think Baron X vs. Lord X is a red herring. Members of all hereditary peerage ranks below duke are generally known as "Lord X," but are generally listed and indexed at the full peerage title. This is a customary practice, not invented by wikipedia, but used by reliable reference works everywhere. Once you go after it in peerage titles, what is to stop you going after it for virtually all peers? john k (talk) 13:00, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Like I say, I think the place in a Wikipedia article that corresponds to the way other reference works list people is the boldface at the start of the article body, not the title (as cases like Tony Blair show). And for me, these titles are exactly like middle initials - middle initials are used sometimes in the real world, but unless they're used reasonably commonly, we don't use them as disambiguators in Wikipedia titles, even when some kind of disambiguation is needed. Likewise I'm perfectly happy to use peerage titles as disambiguators when they are the best way to help people recognize the article subject, but for many life peers I don't think that's the case.--Kotniski (talk) 13:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
This is reasonable. I can certainly agree that there are some instances where it might make sense to use parenthetical disambiguators for British peers; I wouldn't be particularly upset if the article on Michael Martin were moved, for instance. It has generally been our policy that retirement honors should not be used as part of article titles. This seems to have changed recently, and perhaps not for the better; I would not oppose moving, say, David Hope, Baron Hope of Thornes to David Hope (archbishop of York). Cases where someone is active politically as a peer are, I think, different. At any rate, I think that the guidelines should note a reasonable range of options for life peers, depending on how ambiguous their names are, whether they are primary topics, how well known they are by their peerage title, and whether there's an obvious alternative way to disambiguate. I don't think the guideline should set hard and fast rules, but rather that this is something which should be determined separately for each individual article. john k (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I'd go along with that.--Kotniski (talk) 13:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 11 October 2010

The Signpost: 18 October 2010

AN/I

Hi, your recent TfD close has been mentioned at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#TfD snowed. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 23:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I would like your opinion if you think a template must be deleted when "the template is redundant to a better-designed template". Moreover, I would like an explanation which criterion of Wikipedia:Speedy keep you used to close the discussion I opened after only three days. -- Magioladitis (talk) 05:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Not any speedy keep criterion, just the fact that it was so obvious which way the discussion was going that it was a waste of everyone's time and effort to keep it open. (Particularly with templates, it's important to close as soon as possible, as the distracting "this template is up for deletion" message can be showing up on lots of articles.)--Kotniski (talk) 06:06, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Re-Think Move

Please re-think that close on the Talk:Jessica_(entertainer)#Move.3F as there are many other pages with last names in the title of the article please see Nicole Jung and Krystal Jung for examples. Ms. Jung's Wikipedia article refers to her as Jessica Jung several times already. 218.25.106.219 (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course - nearly all articles on people have their last names in the title, but there seems to be a pretty clear consensus that this is one of the cases that shouldn't. I don't have much an opinion on it myself, but I saw nearly everyone in the discussion opposing the move, and it was time for it to be closed, so I closed it. Ask an admin to review the decision if you disagree with it.--Kotniski (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 October 2010

Wikipedia:Categorization

You reverted my removal of "By convention, the first letter of each word in a sort key is capitalized, and other letters are lower case." from Wikipedia:Categorization, which you first included on February 19[3]. The earlier version had "A case-insensitive sort can be achieved by following the convention that initial letters of words are capitalized in the sort key, but other letters are lower case." This is a completely different thing: you changed from "if you want a case-insensitive sort, this is the convention to do this" to "it is convention to have a case-insensitive sort". Please first discuss this kind of change on the talk page before inserting it into the main page. Fram (talk) 13:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly me who's introducing anything new. We do want a case-insensitive sort, this is the way of achieving that that's been recommended in the guideline since long before I arrived, so this is what we should be saying. If you want to change it, please make a proposal.--Kotniski (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
AS I just pointed out, this is not what the guideline recommended at all, this is what you changed, probably because you want a case-inseisitive sort. This is not standard practice at all, and is not generally applied. The result of these changes is usually that a correctly sorted category now has out-of-order terms due to the inserted capitalized defaultsort. Fram (talk) 13:40, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Don't blame me for any of this, this wasn't my idea, but surely it's better to have a convention like this than none at all? (And this one is as good as any other?)--Kotniski (talk) 13:47, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, I shouldn't have put the blaming in it, just presented the facts (as I see them), not some interpretation. Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I actually find [4] that AWB is set up to use this convention, so even if it isn't universally used at the moment, we can hope that it will become so. Then the problems you mention will gradually disappear.--Kotniski (talk) 13:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I have started a discussion at WT:AWB (done before I raed your post here ;-) ), as I believe that having no convention (or having the convention not to have a defaultsort in many cases) would be a better solution, since the current capitalize-all default creates problems (listed there), for no apparent benefits. I just hope that AWB will not send me back to the WP:Categorization page... Fram (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
OK, we'll see what comes of the discussion. I know there are problems with how AWB handles sort keys (I pointed out a mistake it was making with default keys just a few days ago), but as the AWB page itself says, it will never be perfect (human judgement will always be required sometimes).--Kotniski (talk) 18:14, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

You are probably aware of it, but I started the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Sortkey. 18:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

An article you started is being discussed

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:N#What is the consensus on City articles?. patsw (talk) 01:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

Polish coordinate data

Hello, I just wondered if you had seen this and this about trying to reduce the massive number of articles about Poland that need coordinate data: you might be able to help and your input would definitely be appreciated :) Thanks, SeveroTC 13:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw it, but I'm not sure how I can help at this stage - if the data isn't importable from another source (e.g. Polish WP) then I don't know where we can get it from. But if there's anything I can specifically do to help, please let me know.--Kotniski (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Controversial Move?

How is it controversial? The talk page discussion sputtered to halt a while ago. Also I don't get your assertion that where a monarch held two titles we cannot use both. Please point to the relevant policy. Justin talk 16:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus from the talk page discussion to rename the article, so obviously it is controversial. Of course, we can use both - we can do practically anything, if there's consensus to do it - but since there is clearly opposition to it, and it goes against the norms both for monarchs in particular (see WP:NCROY) and for article names in general (see WP:NPOV#Naming), it needs to be proposed and agreed to in the normal way (see WP:RM). --Kotniski (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Well from reading the talk page, which by the way I did before my bold move, there was a low level long term discussion with no conclusion either way. Per WP:NCROY I don]t see anything that would prevent my move. But no matter, it was bold but hardly controversial IMHO. Justin talk 18:58, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
It was controversial in the sense that we know that, if it were proposed, there would be significant opposition to it. If you disagree, the simplest thing to do is propose it via WP:RM and see what happens. (I don't personally think it's that bad a title, but there must be better alternatives, such as simply "James VI and I".)--Kotniski (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 November 2010

Talkback

Hello, Kotniski. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board.
Message added 06:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Settlements

Hi. You remember ages ago the Fritzpollbot proposal. Well this isn't about starting the articles its about creating a backbone to work from... I wondered how easy it would be to ransack the lists by subdistrict on maplandia e.g [5] and each page list from Ainggy-Zigon and how easy it would be to copy these names and paste them and format them into templates like Template:Kawlin Township or at leats into a workspace list so they can be put into templates?. Its just I want at least to have settlements red linked and in the mainspace. This way I can start those which I have a bit of info for and are visible on google maps and gradually we can piece together a guide by country on here. It is possible you could do Burma in this way? Ideally what I want is a set of templates like Wikipedia:WikiProject Burma (Myanmar)/Sagaing Region templates for every region. But to copy the lists manyally and format takes so long manually when I'm certain a bot could be used to process them. For instance I've reached Template:Indaw Township but I had to slowly copy the list from each of the sub pages and even now its need formatting into typical infobox format horizontally without bullet points. Any thoughts? ♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:10, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Not sure - if the places are all listed as text (as opposed to appearing on a map) then it ought to be possible. But I'm working on something for Polish Wikipedia at the moment, so I'm tied up as far as botwork is concerned for at least another month.--Kotniski (talk) 09:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

for catching this at WP:NPOV. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Hawkenbury

Re the Staplehurst one, I'm not sure that dabbing by borough is appropriate in this case. The Tun Wells one is both borough and parish. Hawkenbury, Staplehurst is several miles from Maidstone. Mjroots (talk) 09:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand - borough is the standard way of doing it, isn't it? (According to WP:NCGN#England.) I don't see anything about this situation to make it necessary to do anything different than what we normally do. --Kotniski (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for that link. My take is that it's a guideline and this could be an exception. That said, it's not worth getting into a big argument over. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree it could be an exception if there were some reason for it to be, but I'm not seeing anything that would make it a non-standard case.--Kotniski (talk) 09:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

How much overlap between head and crown?

We are told that the statue is 33m, and the crown 2m, but it is clear from pictures that there is considerable overlap. Even leaving aside the question of whether the crown is part of the statue, is there any verification that the overlap is less than 80cm, which would have to be the case before a clear assertion of being taller than the Cochabamba Cristo is tenable? Is it even clear anywhere that the 33m is not inclusive of the crown? Kevin McE (talk) 13:26, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. But for now I'm happy just to make the uncontroversial statements that (a) the Polish one is claimed to be the tallest and (b) if the crown is excluded then the Bolivian one is still tallest.--Kotniski (talk) 13:37, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

moves

hi there,

about Eggenberg Castle, Graz sorry, I didn't see that there was a discussion going on on the talk page. Gryffindor (talk) 14:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 November 2010

WP:UCC

To save me trying to decode the mess of circular references that seems to have appeared, can you tell me where WP:UCC and WP:USECURRENTCOUNTIES and the naming conventions have gone? They were perfectly OK where they were. Mr Stephen (talk) 10:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Both redirects ought to direct to WP:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about counties, which seems to be the currently maintained page on the subject. The page they used to redirect to is the "historical" link given at the bottom of that page. --Kotniski (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. When I get chance I will try and work out what's what. At first glance, they seem to be talking about different things. Is How to write about counties set up as the place I need to point a new editor who knows nothing about navigating Wikipedia, but knows that Bury is in Lancashire (because the football ground's address says so) or that the MEN Arena is in Lancashire (Because boxrec.com says so) or that Woodford is in Cheshire (because the estate agent says so)? Is it plain English, like the old guideline? Mr Stephen (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
For me, the new target page is much clearer than the old one was (it has more information, but includes - among other things - the only real point that was on the previous page, namely that we don't say that a place is in Lancashire just because it was historically). You may disagree, of course (or perhaps you can improve the current page).--Kotniski (talk) 12:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
I do not see it. But if you insist it is there, then I must be reading it wrong. Let's see how it goes. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 November 2010

Elizabeth II

Somehow I missed the fascinating discussion about the Elizabeth II decision earlier this year, but I notice you were involved. Here is the link.

The impressive recent shift in consensus from favoring consistency with specific guidelines to favoring disambiguation only when necessary is exemplified in this discussion. My concern is that this shift is not yet reflected in policy, that it still favors consistency more than is actually supported in the community now. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 November 2010

Mass changes to NPOV without consensus

User:Kotniski

Kotniski has a pattern of making major changes to NPOV policy without consensus.[6][7][8][9] Kotniski has again made major changes to NPOV policy without consensus when there is opposition.

User:Ludwigs2

Ludwigs2 substantially changed ASF without ever gaining consensus. Ludwigs2 continuously edits NPOV policy without consensus and deletes long established parts of policy.[10][11][12] Editors are concerned Ludwigs2 is forcing changes to NPOV policy, while not adhering to the advice of WP:PG#Substantive changes.[13][14][15] Ludwigs2 has exported the disagreement with long term NPOV to V policy, and refuse to abide by consensus at NPOV. Ludwigs2 wrote in part: "such as the fact/opinion distinction, which I disapprove of". Ludwigs2 is personally against the intent of long established ASF when the editor admitted he disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. It is the aim of Ludwigs2 to remove ASF because Ludwigs2 disapproves of the fact/opinion distinction. Ludwigs2 did not explain the mass changes and did not gain consensus despite claims to the contrary.

Other editors do share my concern on the talk page. Editors have previously tried to rewrite NPOV earlier this year and there was a RFC and it was agreed upon to restore NPOV. Then months later editors rewrote NPOV without consensus that again altered the core meaning or original intent of ASF. For non-controversial text using in-text attribution will dilute Wikipedia articles. "According to" implies a serious dispute where there is none. Do you really support the mass changes to a policy page when the changes drastically weakened the meaning of ASF. I see that Kotniski and Ludwigs wanted to rewrite NPOV to be simple. The rewrite is less explicit and vague. You think a more simple version that resulted in a more vague version is somehow an improvement. The mass rewrite is incoherent and makes little sense. QuackGuru (talk) 18:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the new version, but it's unlikely to be worse than the previous one. SlimVirgin talk|contribs 19:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You have a pattern of making major changes to NPOV without support from the community. See User talk:Kotniski/Archive 5#NPOV. Can you explain how weakening NPOV was an improvement to the page. QuackGuru (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I and others have done so extensively at the talk page.--Kotniski (talk) 18:00, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
You have still not explained your reasons for weakening NPOV policy. You may not realise the changes you made were not an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for all your help, both with WP:DIFFUSE and especially 65_Redroses! Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2010

Prior to 1945

Hello, I just noticed that in 2007, you have added to many pages (more than 2000?) the sentence "Prior to 1945, it was in Germany". For example, all places in Sudetenland have this sentence. Sudetenland was annexed by Nazi Germany in 1938, and was reintegrated to Czechoslovakia in 1945. So, if anything, this should read "It was annexed by Nazi Germany between 1938 and 1945". Mentioning the short time that these towns were "in Germany" when for centuries they belonged to the Austrio-Hungarian empire and then to Czechoslovakia is misleading the reader and POV. For towns in Poland and East Prussia, the situation is different because these places were incorporated into the German state from its beginnings in 1871.  Andreas  (T) 15:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Can you give an example? I wasn't aware that I'd done this for any towns that were in Czechoslovakia pre-1938, but if so, I'll try to correct them.--Kotniski (talk) 16:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake.  Andreas  (T) 16:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. QuackGuru (talk) 00:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The modifications were not made gradually by several editors. The changes never has any general consensus. You unilaterally made this massive change. QuackGuru (talk) 07:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

According to the edit summary on one of the major changes to policy you wrote I dare say someone will revert this, but this is my attempt at a true "simple formulation" - if we need more info, couldn't it go in later sections of the policy?). It seems you knew your edit was controversial because it was unilateral. You also seem to have known other editors would object to your changes. QuackGuru (talk) 07:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

You don't see your unilateral changes drastically weakened NPOV policy? Can you explain what was the problem with the consensus version. QuackGuru (talk) 22:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

mention

Hi. Just a short note to say that I had mentioned your name and a matter that you opined on in the discussion here. I had intended to let you know at the time as a courtesy, but in the heat of the moment neglected to. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 December 2010

WP:D - review of changes

I'm leaving this note on the talk pages of three editors whose work, particularly in the area of policy/guidelines, I particularly respect as being thoughtful and clear, though we don't always agree: User:Hesperian, User:Kotniski, and User:Philip Baird Shearer.

Hi, if you have some time I would appreciate a critical review of a series of edits I've made to WP:D as summarized in this diff. Of course, it's easier to follow by comparing the original version, to the current version. My goal was to bring clarity in meaning to the page, not to change the intended (or only reasonable) meaning of any of it. I know that clarity in meaning is an area in which you excel, so if you could make sure I didn't screw up, I would appreciate it. There has been some concern expressed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation#Too_much_emphasis_on_.22search_term.22.2C_to_little_emphasis_on_.22refer_to.22 that my edits have amounted to significant change in meaning, and I've done my best to address those concerns. If you agree to do this review, you might want to read that first to get some perspective. Anyway, thank you very much for considering. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 December 2010

Queen Anne

Once again your changes to this article are designed to support your false belief that Queen Anne is the primary topic. Deb (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean really - do you have any other suggestion as to how to format it? Certainly out of the queens, this one is the primary topic (for the phrase "Queen Anne", I mean), but as you say, the architectural style is also quite likely to be what people are looking for under that phrase, so I rearranged the page so that that topic came right at the top after the queen herself. Do you see any remaining problems? --Kotniski (talk) 11:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Yes - by making her so prominent you have made it appear that there are no other possible contenders for the title "Queen Anne". Deb (talk) 12:12, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Well there aren't - except the architecture one you mentioned, which I'e made much more prominent than it was before. I thought you'd be pleased.--Kotniski (talk) 12:13, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Flat Earth and NPOV

Dear Mr. Kotniski, I appreciate your input at wp:UNDUE. I have a discussion about adding minority experiments to scientific articles at Talk:Tests_of_general_relativity#Mercury_precession_-_minority_test. I would appreciate your positive input here. Basically, my point is that most scientific experiments start out with only a minority of scientists being aware of the research. I would like to start adding verified scientific research to scientific articles on Wiki, but they will only have a significant minority when added (i.e. like 1% of the scientific community with prominant scientists included).D c weber (talk) 17:09, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 December 2010

Towns

Hello. I believe there will be some changes, as every year. However, I did not notice any article or document about any change yet. If you would notice something new, let me know please. - Darwinek (talk) 19:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Many ways to skin a cat

I noted the really gross redirect was totally eliminated. The problem at Meta, perforce, has to be handled at Meta. Collect (talk) 21:22, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

For which an RfC at Meta now exists. Collect (talk) 23:39, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2010


== Category:Medical_Subject_Headings

You may be interested in a discussion of this on my user talk page. DGG ( talk ) 19:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Move White Rabbit (disambiguation) to White rabbit

Excuse me, can you move the page of White Rabbit (disambiguation) to White rabbit please? Macr86 (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

No, you'd need an administrator (who'd probably want to know why you thought the page needed moving).--Kotniski (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Polish towns

Hello Kotniski. I have a pleasant surprise for you, see the link. - Darwinek (talk) 16:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 January 2011

citing policy/guideline basis in RM comments

FYI, when I filed an ANI to speedy close the second Ann Arbor proposal, one of the arguments submitted against speedy close was that none of the support votes in the original proposal discussion cited policy/guidelines as basis for their positions, while at least the minority in opposition cited WP:PLACES#United States. I note that that applies to your comments in both the original as well as the revert proposal discussions. I'm just saying it might be a good habit to remember to specifically cite the policies/guidelines upon which our positions are ultimately based, and how, no matter how obvious it may seem to us. On my user page I've quoted what I think is the most compelling RM discussion comment I've ever encountered, in case you're interested. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Dan Pelc for deletion

The article Dan Pelc is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dan Pelc until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. GiantSnowman 19:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2011

Arbitration?

Not sure if you're keeping an eye on WP:NCGN discussions, but initial indications are that neither Dohn Joe's idea for mediation nor my idea to identify broad principles is going to be accepted. As I look through the various options at WP:Dispute resolution, I don't see any choices left... besides the last resort. I've never done that, though in retrospect it makes sense since I know the similar TV episode naming disagreement was decided by arbitration a few years ago. Might be time to review how to go through all that, eh? Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration. What do you think? --Born2cycle (talk) 09:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't really been following that particular debate much (it just seemed there would never be consensus to change the system, even if there isn't consensus to keep it), but if similar disputes have been settled by arbitration in the past, I suppose it's worth a try.--Kotniski (talk) 09:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Help:Template

Hi, suggestions for Help:Template.

  • If the same named parameter is specified more than once, only the last instance will be used, even if it is blank.
  • Leaving a named parameter blank is not necessarily the same as omitting it. For example, in {{cite book}}, if |publisher= is unknown, it doesn't matter whether the param is left blank or omitted. However, also in {{cite book}}, if |postscript= is omitted, there is a trailing period; if you provide |postscript=*, there is a trailing asterisk instead; but if |postscript= is present but blank, there is no trailing period.

--Redrose64 (talk) 14:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to include those things when I get down to the appropriate section of the page.--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Another suggestion, this time regarding <noinclude></noinclude> used at the end of a template, for example to enclose the documentation - it's important that there be no spaces or newlines between the last of the "real" template code and the opening <noinclude>. If such whitespace is present, it will be transcluded onto the final page, possibly with unexpected results, particularly for templates intended for inline use. Thus, it's better to suggest
Last line of real code<noinclude>
{{documentation}}
</noinclude>
than this:
Last line of real code
<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>
--Redrose64 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How to title an article

In order to address the argument that without specific naming conventions article titling would be chaotic and unpredictable, I've attempted to describe the process of determining a title that clearly shows that usually specific naming conventions are not needed. I'm asking a few select individuals to look at it before I open it for general review at WT:TITLE.

If you could take a few minutes to review it and let me know what you think, I would really appreciate it. Do you think we could incorporate this or something like it into WP:TITLE? Thanks. Here is the link: User:Born2cycle/how2title. Please leave your comments on the talk page of that subpage, User talk:Born2cycle/how2title. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Helping Hand Barnstar
For your improvements to the template documentation John of Reading (talk) 21:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

pipe trick problemo in <ref>

Thanks for (a) your speedy response, (b) fixing not one, but two <ref> errors I'd made, and (c) going above and beyond to modify the appropriate Help page. You're a gem! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.246.119.98 (talk) 11:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Polish villages, town name changes since 1 January 2011

Village name changes in 2011.

  • Rozporządzenie Ministra Spraw Wewnętrznych i Administracji z dnia 23 grudnia 2010 r. (Dz.U. 2010 nr 257 poz. 1741)

Cheers. JDavid (talk) 15:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll work through them gradually.--Kotniski (talk) 14:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Template:DecadeLink has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 05:08, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Silesian autonomy

Sorry to contradict you, but wasn't Silesian autonomy alsready revoked in 1935, before the war, with the new constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dominus Vobisdu (talk • contribs) 15:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Henry J. Wood ...

Any chance that this can be moved to Talk:Henry Wood? I wasn't at all surprised when I tried the move and it said that I couldn't. --GuillaumeTell 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your efforts, much appreciated. Maybe I'll have a go at establishing Mrs Henry Wood (no relation) under the best-known form of her name when I've recovered. --GuillaumeTell 18:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 January 2011

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at WP:ANI regarding a unilateral move of a controversial title. The thread is PMAnderson_-_another_controversial.2Fdisruptive_page_move:_Juan_Carlos_I.The discussion is about the topic Juan Carlos I of Spain. Thank you. —Born2cycle (talk) 05:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Journey Through the Decade#Requested move

There is a similar requested move I have put in place at Talk:Pay Money to My Pain#Move, if you would not mind taking a look at that as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Request for opinion

Hi Kotniski.

You have taken part in a move discussion a week ago. Now I would like to come up with a consensus, and would appreciate very much if you weigh con/pro arguments there. Thanks. -- Ashot  (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

RM of William the Lion

Hey mate, just letting you know that I had to restart that RM, in case you wanted to comment on the new request. Cheers, Nightw 16:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 January 2011

Help :)

Cześć. Pomożesz mi w tłumaczeniu na angielski. Sylwia Ufnalska niestety zajęta mocno, a ja bym chciał zaprosić wikimedian do drugiej edycji konkursu Wikinews Press Photo ;) pl:n:Wikinews:Wikinews Press Photo 2011. I jeszcze podstrony pl:n:Wikinews:Wikinews Press Photo 2011/Nominacje/pl Wikinews + pl:n:Wikinews:Wikinews Press Photo 2011/Nominacje/global Wikinews. Z góry dzięki - mam nadzieję, że coś fajnego z tego wyjdzie :) Przykuta (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

NOR

Hi, I feel your edits are verging on disruption at NOR. Five editors so far have asked that changes not be made without consensus—-Born2cycle, Qwyrxian, Jayjg, Paul August, and myself—yet you continue to restore your edits. The discussion is now such that it's likely no one can follow it, because you keep raising different issues. Please discuss one issue at a time, and post an RfC for each if necessary, outlining clearly the change you want to make, with a structured discussion that people will be able to follow. Consensus isn't only about getting two or three people to agree with you.

I realize this is frustrating. I'm often frustrated there too that I can't make the changes I want. But it's a core content policy, so apart from copy-editing—so long as it doesn't change meaning—stability has to be the default position. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

What you suggest is totally unrealistic and anti-wiki. We can't have a separate RfC over every word, and we can't just keep restoring wordings which are known to be wrong just because they've been "stable". We make intelligent edits, if we've got reasons to revert others' edits then we do so, but we don't revert just because someone objected once (at least, not after the objection has been answered). No-one can follow the discussion not because of MY actions, but because of people like you, who make it necessary to start a new discussion over every little change (because you won't accept common sense explanations in edit summaries, or let it go when you're shown to have been in the wrong).--Kotniski (talk) 15:15, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
[moved from SV talk] I'm really surprised at you, Slim V - I always thought of you as a constructive, intelligent, pro-improvement kind of editor, but your continual knee-jerk reverting of any little change at WP:OR is becoming very frustrating and quite the opposite of constructive. Any chance you could take a step back and consider whether you aren't (subconsciously) trying to WP:OWN this page?--Kotniski (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
(ec) I've moved your post here to keep this in one place, though I realize it wasn't in response to mine. I am pro-improvement, but all these changes aren't improvements. If you would slow down and listen to other people, you might be persuaded of that. But you seem ready with your counter-arguments before having even considered what others are saying; and you're often ignoring their arguments entirely and forcing them to repeat themselves over and over, which has made the talk page unreadable. Speed is not a good thing with core policy. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:18, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Most times there aren't any arguments, just "this has been stable" and a load of non-sequiturs from Jayjg. Anyway, I'm done with that page, not worth wasting so much time over such little improvements, so well done, you and your fellow blind reverters have achieved what every page OWNer wants - make life so frustrating for anyone trying to make improvements that you end up driving them away.--Kotniski (talk) 15:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You're quite wrong about there being no arguments. A great deal of thought has gone into that policy, and it works when applied with common sense, the magic ingredient of all policies. You were making fairly significant changes, some of which would have confused people, e.g. that experts can draw on their personal knowledge without citing sources, so long as they're able to cite them—but why would someone be able to cite a source yet decline to do so? I know the need for stability is frustrating, but the day you go searching during a content dispute for a key point in a policy that you're relying on, only to find someone has removed it, that's the day stability is appreciated. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 15:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I really think you're just raising objections for the sake of having some objections, however illogical and contradictory with the rest of policy they may be. I'm not going to waste time arguing with you now I've decided to leave your page alone, but do you really not understand what it already says several times in policy - that you don't have to provide sources for everything, you have to be able to provide sources if challenged?--Kotniski (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
You have to provide sources for anything that's actually challenged, but also for anything that's likely to be, i.e. you have to anticipate challenges. The last thing we want to encourage is people who see themselves as experts (sometimes rightly, sometimes not) thinking it's okay to add their personal knowledge so long as they think they saw a source for it somewhere at some point, which they'll add if anyone gets round to insisting on it.
Anyway, enough said. The only point I wanted to make here is that stability is not such a bad thing, even though it works against us sometimes; and bear in mind that it has worked against me too. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:10, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Stability, like most things, is good in moderation. Once it becomes a counter against common sense and a substitute for reasoned argument, it works against all of us.--Kotniski (talk) 16:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree to some extent. But I've done a lot of policy editing, and I've seen how apparently insignificant changes lead to the butterfly effect, especially in the hands of inexperienced editors. That's why the page has to be worded carefully, even when the wording seems a little awkward. But I have watched the policy work—in the sense of resolve disputes clearly—in countless examples over the years, which has to count for something. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:46, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

[moved from SV talk] Are you going to stalk all my edits now and revert them? What is it with this "policies work in harmony" thing? What does it add of such value that you have to go to the lengths of blind reverting even that?--Kotniski (talk) 16:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if we could keep this conversation together. No, I'm not going to stalk your edits, but I think you should take the advice several people have given you about editing the policies. Make the change if you want to, but if you're reverted, it's best to take it to talk. If you can't get satisfaction there, consider opening an RfC. An RfC has two advantages: first, it brings in fresh eyes, and secondly, the time it takes allows the heat to be removed from the situation, so changes are made with cool heads.
The "harmony" point has been in the three policies for years, and it draws people's attention to the fact that they really have to be understood together to make sense. But I'd prefer not to keep discussing this for now, so I'll leave it there for the time being. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 16:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Your comment

I just noticed your comment here about canvassing which could be relevant to this thread of the same topic. [16] I wonder what do you think, how were the users that were canvassed selected? And why such a high percentage responded at once with supporting votes to the canvassing? Hobartimus (talk) 14:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Seems to me they were selected on the basis of not being Hungarian. I see he's now notified a number of other people, some of whom are Hungarian, presumably to redress the balance. I suppose we'll just have to ask him how he chose these people, and let the admin who closes the discussion decide how much these actions have influenced it.--Kotniski (talk) 14:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing List of MeSH codes

Use this link right here to edit the page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_MeSH_codes_%28D12.776%29&action=edit

Lamp301 (talk) 23:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2011

RM

I thought about doing a combined RM, but decided aginst it due to the differing notabilitiy reasons such as some being journailists sports professionals. Also due to the disprate nature of the individuals it seemed inapropriate to lump them otgether. If you can find a reasonable and sensible way of combining them and others then please feel free to do so. I though couldn't come up with that reasoning.--Lucy-marie (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Naming conventions for artworks

Thanks for all of your work in helping to get all of the artworks in the Indiana Statehouse Public Art Collection, which was discussed on Talk:Otis Bowen (bust). Do you know if all of the Manuals of Style have been updated to reflect the understanding that was reached there? --RichardMcCoy (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NOR RfC

Don't close RfCs prematurely, [17] especially not one you're involved in but didn't open. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 17:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 7 February 2011

Apology expected

In this edit you claim "this much, at least, is uncontested, surely" with respect to this change (addition underlined):

Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source (unless supported by a secondary source).

This is in spite of this edit in which I specifically rejected the notion that the support must only come from a secondary source. CBM and I have made these points on the talk page as well. You seem to have a very peculiar notion of what "contested" means. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

But in the statement as restored by CBM, it doesn't allow any support at all. As I've just pointed out on the policy talk page, you're going in the wrong direction if you want to make this point - you're not saying that my change is wrong, you're saying that it doesn't go far enough (though I think you're wrong in saying it doesn't go far enough, since the support for an interpretative claim that we make really must come from a secondary source).--Kotniski (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
Your opportunity to apologize for the deliberate lie "this much, at least, is uncontested, surely" has expired. Don't expect any good will from me. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:45, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
No, apparently we can't.--Kotniski (talk) 09:47, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 February 2011

Bad idea

"I didn't do anything unusual" is not a good phrase to use when you're up above 5RR. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Posting on someone's talk page after being requested not to is also a bad idea. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't you think that making accusations against someone on a page (which many third parties will be watching) and then not allowing that person to respond on that page, is also a bad idea?--Kotniski (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 February 2011

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kotniski/Archive_6&oldid=1143120638"