User talk:Srobak: Difference between revisions
→Phil Collins: new section |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
||
(467 intermediate revisions by 100 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[User talk:Srobak/Archive 1| |
[[User talk:Srobak/Archive 1|Archive: 2009]] |
||
[[User talk:Srobak/Archive 2|Archive: 2010]] |
|||
[[User talk:Srobak/Archive 3|Archive: 2011]] |
|||
== Linking common terms == |
|||
Common terms ''can'' be linked in articles, but that doesn't mean they '''should'''. Linking starts getting out of hand and next thing you know, there is a sea of blue links. For example, sure, you can link the term "United States", but do you honestly think there are many English speakers that don't know what the United States is? Do many English speakers NOT know what New York City is? Linking just because we can doesn't help the article. Linking to a generic article about Miami doesn't really enhance the article about Miami Vice, especially since the majority of people already know what Miami means. But linking to an article to help someone understand what "geospatial" means does enhance an article. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 00:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==[[Tim Truman (musician)]]== |
|||
: I agree against making a sea of blue and links - but I really do not think that linking the first instance of Miami in that page specifically would necessarily contribute to that, nor do I think that it completely fall under the aspect of it being so common that it shouldn't be linked. Without the actual city of Miami, there would not be any MV - there is a direct correlation between the two, and Miami's significance in its role in MV is quite substantial in my opinion. If you disagree, fine - we can discuss at length - and/but also at that point I would rather move the discussion to the mv talk page to get other peoples feedback as well. I am all about consensus :) $.02 [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 15:49, 26 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hi! I noticed that you removed my prod from that article, saying that you'd found the musician to be [[WP:MUSIC|notable]], but you didn't add the sources you found. Could you stick them on the article, so no later person makes the same mistake? I didn't find the needed sources when I looked, but it certainly won't be the first time someone else found sources I missed. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
==Edit warring on user talk page== |
|||
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Do not modify it.'''</span> |
|||
Hi Srobak, since you mentioned that you would move this to my talk page, I thought I would beat you to the jump :). Seriously, I don't know what the deal is at Skimobile, sled, snowmachine, whateveryouwanttocallit, but leaving a warning/comment at a user's talk page is fine. Once they have read it, they have every right to remove it, or archieve it or whatever.(just as you did with cb's message) To edit war over reinserting it after another editor has removed it as well is not helpful or productive and boarders on distruption. User talk pages are treated slightly differently than main space article talk pages. Anyways, please feel free to respond here since this page is now watchlisted or just...remove it after having read :) (removing it implicitly implies that you have read it fwiw) Thank you and good luck, --[[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] [[User talk:Threeafterthree|(talk)]] 13:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==[[WP:CIVIL]]== |
|||
I was really surprised by [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tim_Truman_(musician)&curid=34255339&diff=469150319&oldid=469147740 this edit]. Are you familiar with [[WP:CIVIL]]? It's a pretty important rule, and since I'm planning to keep an occasional eye on your interactions, I wanted to make sure you had read it. -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 21:04, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::I'm quite familiar with it. You '''will''' know when I am not being civil. I will be ''very'' direct however - 1st - don't threaten me... veiled or otherwise. I do not tolerate that at all. Pull that again or any form of harassment and you will be AR'ed, and I do mean for the full 9. 2nd - The main thing you need to ''"keep an eye on"'' is what I advised you about earlier; Focus your efforts on improving existing content quality - not detracting substantive material from it. With that - this issue is now concluded. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 06:14, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Egg's got yer back - now look what you're treading in if you step backwards! <span style="background-color:silver;color:black;">[[User:Egg Centric|Egg]] [[User_talk:Egg Centric|Centric]]</span> 22:09, 2 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:''The above discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Do not modify it.'''</span> </div> |
|||
: While they have every right to remove something from their own talk page - '''you''' as a 3rd party to the user talk page and the original comment poster - do not. You have been issued repeated warnings in the past about reversion wars, and more specifically reversion wars on talk pages. Yes they are treated differently - specifically in the sense that they are not generally to be reverted other than by the original author(s). An edit war warning was issued to the user in question, and as the issuer of that warning, I am well within my right to re-affirm it and keep it in place per WP guidelines, as it may be necessary to use as reference for future abuse issues. |
|||
: Case in point, and to that effect: you will also notice that you have been issued an edit war warning as well, as per the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]] you have conducted 3 destructive reversions in less than 24 hours to the same page. The fact that you did it as a 3rd party to a user talk page only pours salt on that wound. If this conduct does not stop, then I will be forced to open yet another [[WP:AN/I]] for you, as has been done in the past. Due to your repeated history and warnings in such matters, there will be no problem in having it enacted. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 14:12, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
:''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Do not modify it.'''</span> |
|||
==Eric Clapton== |
|||
Before any type of "edit war" commences, I'd like to remind you that it is common knowledge among people who have followed the career of Eric Clapton and the career of Jimi Hendrix, that Clapton made the switch from Gibson guitars (Les Paul, SG, Firebird, 335, etc.) to the Stratocaster around 1970, after having seen Hendrix perform many times with the Stratocaster. Yes, the Clapton wiki article is about Clapton, not Hendrix, as you noted, but let me remind you of the fact the the "guitars" section of this wiki article begins with the following sentence, which specifically notes OTHER artists, including Hendrix: |
|||
*You were earlier advised not to continue to replace the removed warning at [[User talk:Pierre cb]]. Users may normally remove warnings from their own talk pages at their discretion. You have continued to re-add the warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Pierre_cb&diff=prev&oldid=280006680 diff]. Therefore, if you do so again I will block you from editing to prevent further disruption. [[User:CIreland|CIreland]] ([[User talk:CIreland|talk]]) 14:02, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
"Clapton's choice of electric guitars has been as notable as the man himself; alongside Hank Marvin, The Beatles and Jimi Hendrix, Clapton exerted a crucial and widespread influence in popularising particular models of electric guitar" |
|||
: CIreland - see comments above. '''Valid warning''' was issued. A 3rd party [[User:Threeafterthree|Tom]] took it upon themselves to conduct destructive edits to a user talk page in violation of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Others.27_comments]]and also violate the [[Wikipedia:Three-revert rule|three-revert rule]]. 3rd party edits to user talk pages do not fall within the scope of proper usage, and he has violated both of those repeatedly in the past. I trust you will agree to this and be civil about it. I have followed up with this on your talk page. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 14:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Stonnman|Stonnman]] ([[User talk:Stonnman|talk]]) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:You need to read [[WP:CK]] and [[WP:OR]]. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 21:11, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
I've read the articles you noted, and now await your response to my observation above, which you haven't specifically responded to. (I wasn't referring to "common knowledge" among the general public, I was referring to "common knowledge among people who have followed the career of Eric Clapton and the career of Jimi Hendrix"). |
|||
== Miami Vice == |
|||
[[User:Stonnman|Stonnman]] ([[User talk:Stonnman|talk]]) 21:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Thanks for your help, on the ''Miami Vice'' article, though I have a feeling we will both need to keep an eye out on it. <sub>[[User:El Greco|'''El Greco''']]</sub><sup>([[User talk:El Greco|talk]])</sup> 17:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:[[WP:CK]] still applies. Not my policy. You can [[WP:RFC]] it if you would like to invoke change. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 22:03, 3 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:''The above discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Do not modify it.'''</span> </div> |
|||
:In addition to the decline above, you were mistaken about the application of [[WP:TPG]] to a user talk page - it is perfectly allowable to have personal conversations on user talk pages, even non-English conversations, as long as it isn't carried too far, i.e. [[WP:MYSPACE]]. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Actually, I find this comment most disturbing. You should not be trying to "prevent random newb edits", because we [[WP:BITE|don't bite the newcomers]] and also you don't [[WP:OWN]] the articles you watch. Instead, you should [[WP:WELCOME|welcome new users]], [[WP:AGF|assume they are trying to help]], and [[WP:CIV|engage in polite discussion]] with them when they have concerns. [[User:Mangojuice|Mango]][[Special:Contributions/Mangojuice|<span style="color:orange">'''juice'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Mangojuice|talk]]</sup> 15:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::[[WP:NOTFORUM]] makes no such subjective statements or allowances, but instead states very clearly that ''" talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages"''. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::'''User''' talk pages are not treated the same as talk pages in other namespaces - please read [[WP:UP]] for clarification. Particularly, ''Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit'' and ''In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask''. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::So the rules and policies (such as [[WP:SPEAKENGLISH]] and [[WP:NOTFORUM]]) apply, except when they don't. Fantastic logic - and people wonder why WP is such a mess. There is '''absolutely''' no distinction made in [[WP:SPEAKENGLISH]], [[WP:NOTFORUM]] or numerous other policy and guideline articles between their application in article talk pages and user talk pages. In fact - [[WP:SPEAKENGLISH]] reads as to apply directly to user talk pages. If there is a distinction to be made - then it needs to be in those articles to ensure proper, uniform application of policies and guidelines. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[WP:WL|Whatever]]. I give up. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::::{{ec}} And how do edits in another language negatively effect the quality of the encyclopedia exactly? Remember that rules and policies are secondary to the purpose of [[WP:5]], esp. #4 and #5. Please remember, that our role as contributors is not to enforce rules but further the project. It is fairly clear that we don't think your recent contributions have furthered the project. Once you have taken an (albeit forced) couple day break and had some delicious warm drinks and low stress days, please provide constructive solutions to help further the project when you return! Best wishes, [[User:Sadads|Sadads]] ([[User talk:Sadads|talk]]) 18:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::::I have been. It's ridiculous that some folks don't understand that guidelines, policies, the adherence to and the enforcement thereof are indeed quite necessary to further the project. I didn't create the policies or guidelines - so your question is better geared for an RFC. Anyhow - it's downright scary for the project as a whole when it is actually an admin who fails to recognize the need and purpose of the above. Might want to think about why not only do they exist but why they are necessary as well as the need to for users to abide by them before making another statement like that. Now - as for your edit comment - there are far more silly things on WP (many of which honestly have no place here) than a legitimate discussion (no one is yelling about injustice or anything else) in my talk page. If you do not find substance to it - then you are free to change the channel. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
It seems that this discussion has been rather missing the point. It is perfectly true that '''''all''''' contributions to English Wikipedia should be in English, including those on user talk pages. However,if someone posts in another language on a user talk page, then the thing to do is to politely explain the situation to them, not to summarily remove their message. It is not acceptable to remove another user's comments on a talk page other than your own, except under extreme circumstances, and a comment's being in another language is not one of those circumstances. In addition, Wikipedia's edit policy is, essentially "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think that you are right". No matter how convinced you are that posting a message in another language is so evil and inexcusable that it must be removed, and no matter how convinced you are that Wikipedia's policies support such removal, you were not justified in edit warring. [[User:JamesBWatson|JamesBWatson]] ([[User talk:JamesBWatson|talk]]) 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::I am not the new user trainer on staff today, sorry. While your expectations might be more forgiving in letting new users arbitrarily learn and practice their edits and contributions on long-standing articles - mine are not. When I see an anonymous IP without a user account (new or otherwise) come and delete a LARGE chunk of standing, previously cited information (for years mind you), regardless if the link is dead (beyond the control of ANY editor) and replace it with un-cited information (which his first couple edits were) on a page which I contribute to and repeatedly revert it - then YES, it is gonna get my attention. Other users involved had already advised the user in question to create an account, play in the sandbox and not in live articles, cite the info, yadda yadda. At some point - the burden falls on the anonymous or new user to learn "how to help" and that is what '''they''' need to take upon themselves to do. If this entire deal wouldn't have started out that way then maybe '''four different standing, contributing editors''' to that page wouldn't have been blanketly reverting his "contributions". [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
:You're right - you have indeed been missing the point - which is in fact a much larger issue than what you seem to be pigeon-holing. No one is arguing about the edit-warring anymore. Try and keep up. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;"> |
|||
''The following discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Do not modify it.'''</span> |
|||
:Srobak, you were blocked for 3RR in 2009. You stated [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srobak&diff=prev&oldid=446901625 in August] of this year (during a thread in which you were warned that you were close to breaking 3RR) that "I do not violate [[WP:3RR]] or any other rules, unlike others in this thread." If you have read [[WP:3RR]], you will have also read the statement, "The three revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of what "edit warring" means, and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three revert rule, or even coming close to doing so," at the top of the same page. You are quite clearly aware of our edit warring guidelines, by your own words, and given that, no further warning was required prior to blocking you for violating them. [[User:Fluffernutter|A fluffernutter is a sandwich!]] ([[User talk:Fluffernutter|talk]]) 16:32, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::"Further" warning would require one to have been initially issued. This did not happen. 3RR also did not happen. While not ''required'' a [[template:uw-ew|UW-EW]] is certainly more '''appropriate''' vs. straight to block. This is not the first time your improper exercise of process and power has been pointed out to you by me. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 16:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Neogeolegend]], whose greeting you were determined to remove from a user talk page, has a talk page that is full of vandalism warnings from you. But I've been reviewing his edits, and I haven't yet found the vandalism. For example, you gave him a final warning for vandalism at [[Talk:Diego Forlán]], but the only edit he seems to have made to that page was [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Diego_Forlán&diff=prev&oldid=448566074 this one], and that was three months ago. You also seem to be identifying [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Universal_Soldier&action=historysubmit&diff=468138795&oldid=467620051 this good-faith edit] as deliberate disruption. I'm having trouble understanding what good the twelve template warnings on that user's talk page were supposed to accomplish. If you really thought that this user was vandalizing, why didn't you report it at [[WP:ANV]]? If you didn't really think that this user was vandalizing, why didn't you engage him personally, rather than with templates? -[[User:FisherQueen|FisherQueen]]<span style="font-size: smaller;"> ([[User talk:FisherQueen|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/FisherQueen|contribs]])</span> 11:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
Most interesting. You removed the notice of the 24 hour block you received over your actions and even now, after it's been clearly shown by an Admin that I was both correct and provided the necessary sources which were ignored, thus creating the entire issue, as well as that there was no "vanadalism" or "sockpuppetry", you're still talking about needing to watch things and "prevent newb edits". Perhaps you need to consider first whether the "newb" is correct, and whether you have actually read the info provided as opposed to assuming you have some special dispensation to decide right and wrong. Just a suggestion which you are of course free to ignore. |
|||
:I will be responding to this in a more appropriate location in a bit (note: on ''my'' schedule - not yours), but perhaps you can save yourself a bit of legwork by taking a closer look at his edit history and reversions so as to get a better understanding of the extensive level of falsification and disruption edit history this user has. That being said - as you have nothing further of value to add on my talk page - don't add anything. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
''The above discussion is closed. <span style="color:red">'''Do not modify it.'''</span> </div> |
|||
== January 2012 == |
|||
Have a great day! |
|||
<div class="user-block" style="min-height: 40px"> [[Image:Stop x nuvola.svg|40px|left|alt=|link=]] You have been '''[[Wikipedia:Blocking policy|blocked]]''' '''indefinitely''' from editing for disruption and unacceptable aggression. If you would like to be unblocked, you may [[Wikipedia:Appealing a block|appeal this block]] by adding the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|2=reason=''Your reason here ~~~~''}}, but you should read the [[Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks|guide to appealing blocks]] first. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> |
|||
Hi. I am sorry, but I feel I have to do this after reviewing your recent contribution history. I see a catalog of failing to act collegially, of inability to face disagreement in a civil manner, of edit-warring over various issues, of repeatedly and inappropriately accusing people of vandalism, of repeatedly deleting other people's comments on Talk pages, of issuing inappropriate templated warnings (and continuing after being advised against it), of accusing people of all sorts of things they are not guilty of, and of attacking people quite nastily after they try to interact with you in a civil and friendly manner. I'm afraid this kind of behavior is simply not acceptable here, and I think you should remain blocked until you make a commitment to change your battlefield approach to interaction with others, and can convince the community that you will be an asset to the project. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC) <small>(PS: Any admin is welcome to review my block, but if you do, please have a look back over the history of this talk page to see removed interactions, block notice, past warnings, etc, and check the user's recent contribution history) -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)</small> |
|||
[[User: |
Hahahaha.... [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
||
:I can see that you have done good work here in the past, and I'd like to be able to unblock you as soon as possible, but recently your approach to other users really has been way too aggressive - and it really is damaging to the project. So can I please ask you to review your recent interactions with others, and try to listen to what other people say rather than treating everything as an attack and launching a counter-attack every time. You also appear to be going over the top in terms of "law enforcement" here, attempting, for example, to dictate what people can and cannot say on user talk pages (removing people's comments and flooding them with warnings in the process). Please try to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly and collegial project in which we try to help each other, and not a rule-following police state where people get slapped down for every minor perceived infraction of "the law" -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
==Sockpuppetry== |
|||
:That may be the single longest run-on sentence I have ever read. Yes, I removed the block notice as it no longer pertains. I am free to edit '''my''' talk page as I see fit, as are you of yours. Why that is a problem for you is beyond me. Initially, your "newb edits" were just that. As I stated above - at first your massive deletion of standing, cited material and its replacement did not substantiate your claim. I'm sorry - but a random picture of a car on a random discussion forum just doesn't hold water vs. standing, cited article contributions. As Mango addressed to you elsewhere - links to fansites are not prohibited, but using them as points of reference is not good practice. |
|||
Re [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak]] - registering sock accounts is not the way to get back to editing Wikipedia. Your account here is indefinitely, but not necessarily infinitely, blocked, and if you wish to rejoin the community, what you need to do is convince us that you understand the problems that got you blocked, and that you are able and willing to adjust your style of interaction with other Wikipedia editors. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:The whole "if it is on the internet then it must be true" approach is exactly the thing that WP is trying to avoid by citing real, valid, and credible sources. If I create a web page on my server stating that grass is pink and then I cite that page in an article about grass and claim it as being factual - that doesn't exactly work, and I don't expect it to. |
|||
*Srobak, please do not refactor other people's comments - the "not" in the above message is correct and should be there -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:In the end, I am glad that you finally created an account vs. remaining anonymous, dynamic IP - it gives you that much more credibility, nevermind your cites, and you will see it will go a long way to that end on all the articles you contribute to, and I am also thankful for the edits you made with the parts that are tangible, credible sources. So long as that keeps up - then there will not be many issues, with anyone on any article. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 20:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC) |
|||
**For the love of all that's Holy... '''''I''''' did '''not''' re-factor other people's comments. I <u>'''restored'''</u> a comment which '''''you''''' left to the state in which '''''you''''' left it. It was previously re-factored [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Srobak&diff=470647431&oldid=470586342 here] by Vanisaac, in violation of [[WP:TPO]], which reads in part "''Never'' edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". As the edit in question ''did'' change the meaning of the comment 180 degrees in fact, it also violated [[WP:MINOR]] - which states in part that "''any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can change the meaning of a sentence, is a major edit.''" Ironic that the example used in the policy article is in fact the <u>'''''exact'''''</u> word which was changed on my talk page! It is a real shame when one admin doesn't pay attention to the accuracy of edit history (that would be you), and when another violates 2x WP policies in a single edit (that would be Vanisaac) and when '''''both''''' of them need to have these things pointed out to them. Those who cannot understand and follow such simple, basic practices and guidelines have absolutely no business in position to police others into doing such (especially when they already are). If the meaning of your statement was incorrect - then per policy it needed to be changed '''''by you''''' - and not result in you barking at me for restoring what you posted to the state in which you posted it. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:::Vanisaac edit was done in good faith, correcting an obvious typo. It might be nice to actually thank him for this rather than creating another edit war, especially as this sort of behaviour is what you are blocked for. If you want to be unblocked then it will need an indication that you have altered you approach taking a less confrontational atitude. --[[User:Salix alba|Salix]] ([[User talk:Salix alba|talk]]): 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::First - there is no edit war. You need to take a look at the edit history. Second - good faith or not - per TPO it is <u>not</u> to be done. Third - even if it is obvious it is still TPO. Fourth - I was not being confrontational. I reverted a TPO & MINOR vio on ''my own talk page'' and was then "confronted" by being <u>wrongfully accused</u> of TPO. In response I explained the situation - which is something I should not have to do - because those involved ought to know better. Why stuff this obvious needs to be explained to folks who certainly ought to be able to figure it out is mind boggling. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::::You're welcome, Salix. As to the edit in question, I considered it - and continue to do so - to be a minor grammatical fix, and as such, perfectly acceptable for marking as a minor edit. Moreover, as the intent of the edit was a good-faith attempt to clarify another's comment, and that edit was, in fact, welcomed by the original contributor, I was not in violation of [[WP:TPO]] (see the first example of acceptable edits). In the end, Srobak, I think the largest source of your problems can be boiled down to a single principle: [[WP:AGF]]. If you assumed that my edit was a good-faith effort to clarify a murky grammatical point, then none of this happens. Admitedly, I probably set an unintentional trap for you by making that edit, but you stepped in it all yourself. Just ask yourself, "Was Vanisaac trying to make things better?" If you honestly can't answer "Yes" to that question, you probably don't belong in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. [[User:Vanisaac|Van]][[User talk:Vanisaac|Isaac]]<sub><small>[[WP:WikiProject Writing systems|WS]]</small></sub><sup style="margin-left:-2.9ex">[[Special:Contributions/Vanisaac|contribs]]</sup> 00:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*Vanisaac simply fixed a typo for me, and I think it should have been blatantly obvious that I'd accidentally missed out the word "not" from that sentence. The Wikipedia TPO rules are meant to be interpreted sensibly, not blindly followed, and it would have been pointless for me to revert that correction and then redo it myself, don't you think? Also, we don't generally go round reverting edits simply because someone didn't check the "minor edit" box, and it's not so applicable to Talk pages anyway - the piece you quoted says "the meaning of an '''article'''" (my emphasis). I'm sure you thought you were doing right by trying to enforce rules, but the blind enforcement of "rules" and becoming aggressive with people you see as breaching them is a large part of what got you blocked here - it's just not the way Wikipedia operates -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
**Aaaaaaand we are once again back to "the rules and policies apply - except when they don't." Lovely, circular logic. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
***It's more that most are really intended to be guidelines rather than hard and fast rules, and need contextual interpretation, which is why we have [[WP:IAR]]. Or do you honestly think it's better to blindly enforce "rules" over obvious common sense? -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
****Nope - but when I was doing things that were obvious, common sense - I was given the rod by admins saying "that's not policy - those aren't the rules". It gets very tiring trying to keep WP accurate and vandal free when overly restricted by administrative double-standards and double-talk. Some have even gone so far as to actually harbor habitual detractors to the project by applying rules where common sense should prevail, and applying common sense where rules should prevail. Let's pick a cake and eat it. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*****Sure there are inconsistencies over the whole of such a large project, but we're not going to solve that by blindly sticking to the letter of rules and reverting an obviously correct typo fix - and then arguing it to death using "rules". I'm trying to help you understand why your over-bureaucratic focus on rules is not the way we work here, and that you need to change that approach to get unblocked (and others are saying the same things to you). In the end, though, it's up to you whether you listen or not, and I'm not going to argue this one any further -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
*****Actually, just one more general point about "rules". Some aspects of policy are more important than others, and so are closer to being actual rules than others, and the trick is in using judgment to understand which is which. For example, [[WP:BLP]] policy is very important, and we really need to avoid doing harm to living people (and as a secondary consideration, avoid libel suits). But many aspects of talk page policy, using good edit summaries, not using the "minor edit" checkbox, etc, carry far less importance, and they need to be treated differently. So someone adding a libelous claim to a BLP needs to be dealt with more severely than, say, someone saying hello to someone else in a language other than English on their talk page. Intelligent judgment is what's needed, based on the context itself, the balance of good and bad being done, etc -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:Also see [[WP:NOTBURO]]. —[[User:DoRD|DoRD]] ([[User talk:DoRD|talk]]) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
::Good point - as it says there, "''Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them.''" -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|Boing! said Zebedee]] ([[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee|talk]]) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC) |
|||
== '''The Olive Branch''': A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1) == |
|||
==Theatrical/director's cut== |
|||
I moved the list on ''Miami Vice'' to the talk page. I hadn't see the history prior to the removal (just saw your revert of Darrenhusted (also sent him a notice on the list)), but all of the content is stored on the talk page, if anyone wants to whittle it down. I invite you to comment there for discussing what content should remain. --Happy editing! [[User:Nehrams2020|Nehrams2020]] ([[User talk:Nehrams2020|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Nehrams2020|contrib]]) 06:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Welcome to the first edition of ''The Olive Branch''. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in [[WP:DR|dispute resolution]] (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are [[Wikipedia:Dispute_Resolution_Improvement_Project/NewsletterList|active in DR]], but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to [[Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/NewsletterOptOut|this page]]. |
|||
==Vandalism warnings== |
|||
[[File:Dispute_Resolution_on_the_English_Wikipedia.pdf|thumb|Steven Zhang's Fellowship Slideshow]] |
|||
Piling on warnings with no additional activity as you did with [[User_talk:217.44.246.176]] is not the way to go about dealing with vandalism. Be patient and [[WP:AGF|assume good faith]] if the vandal has stopped editing after an initial warning. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Thanks. -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> [[User:Mufka|<sup>(u)</sup>]] [[User talk:Mufka|<sup>(t)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mufka|<sup>(c)</sup>]] 20:17, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
In this issue: |
|||
* '''Background''': A brief overview of the DR ecosystem. |
|||
* '''Research''': The most recent DR data |
|||
* '''Survey results''': Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey |
|||
* '''Activity analysis''': Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums |
|||
* '''DR Noticeboard comparison''': How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August |
|||
* '''Discussion update''': Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate |
|||
* '''Proposal''': It's time to close the [[Wikipedia:Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard|Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard]]. Agree or disagree? |
|||
<div style="text-align:center; font-size:larger;">[[Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution Improvement Project/Newsletter|Read the entire first edition of ''The Olive Branch'' -->]]</div> |
|||
--''The Olive Branch'' 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC) |
|||
:: The user continued to vandalize the page, after the other wiki user warned them against doing so. Checking the page history and the warning history will reveal this. It is obvious it is a vandalism only account, and it is safe to assume bad-faith in this instance. Please address accordingly, and block the IP. Copying to your talk page. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- EdwardsBot 0345 --> |
|||
== Heat 1995 genre == |
|||
:::The IP's last edit was at 19:56 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&diff=prev&oldid=302654516]. The warning was placed on the IP talk page at 19:58 [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:217.44.246.176&diff=prev&oldid=302657654]. The warning was left 2 minutes after the IP's last edit. The IP made no edits after that time. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that the vandal was scared off by the warning. I hope that you will remove the v4im message that you left because it was placed inappropriately and that type of warning is not appropriate for simple childish vandalism, but it is intended for serious and blatant vandalism. -- <font color="#000080">Mufka</font> [[User:Mufka|<sup>(u)</sup>]] [[User talk:Mufka|<sup>(t)</sup>]] [[Special:Contributions/Mufka|<sup>(c)</sup>]] 20:41, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
Hi, there is a constant changing of the genre of the 1995 film Heat. Your input on the talk page would be a big help.[[User:OnBeyondZebrax|OnBeyondZebrax]] ([[User talk:OnBeyondZebrax|talk]]) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Indeed that is the case. Original user posted warn after 2 different sets of vandal reverts. Thought the warn was in between. 00ps. :) Reverted my warn [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 21:00, 17 July 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Snowmobile== |
|||
My edits to [[snowmobile]] were not vandalism. The last one in particular, which you undid and warned me for vandalism, removed the link to [[ski-doo]] in the '''See also''' section because it redirects to [[Bombardier Recreational Products]], the very first link in that section. My edit summary was quite clear about this. I'm pretty sure [[WP:ALSO]] doesn't allow unnecessary duplication of links. Regardless, all my edits are [[WP:AGF|in good faith]].--[[Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196]] ([[User talk:70.80.234.196|talk]]) 23:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Upon closer inspection, [[Bombardier Recreational Products]] is the second manufacturer listed in '''See also''' section.--[[Special:Contributions/70.80.234.196|70.80.234.196]] ([[User talk:70.80.234.196|talk]]) 23:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:: the existing BRP link is sufficient, though the outright deletion of standing material should be carefully considered in your future edits so as not to be considered vandalism. Please also register an account if you are going to continue participating in WP. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 18:17, 19 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Eric Clapton sound files == |
|||
Hi, problems with their copyright status, in particular the fact that 12 are used in the article, and that there's precious little supporting description in the article text. Are you able to help with determining which ones (probably four) should stay? [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk)</font >]] 14:18, 28 August 2009 (UTC) |
|||
== Storey == |
|||
Storey [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/storey] is not the same word as story [http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/story], even if they're spelled the same in the US. The article, as far as I can see, is in UK English. As you say, keep it consistent. -- [[User:Ian Dalziel|Ian Dalziel]] ([[User talk:Ian Dalziel|talk]]) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Burj khalifa == |
|||
{{talkback|Astronaut|Burj Building}} |
|||
== Regarding your revert and warning == |
|||
Thanks for trying to make Wikipedia a better place, however [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:194.60.38.198&diff=prev&oldid=340538703 this] revert of an automated process being ran by a [[WP:BOT|bot]] wasn't helpful. The bot is re-categorising, and whilst the contents of that talk page were changed, no real comments made by a person were refactored, meaning [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:KittyBot&diff=prev&oldid=340539216 this] warning was un-necessary. Cheers, [[User:NJA|<em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">'''NJA'''</em>]] <small> [[User talk:NJA|<em style="color:#63D1F4">'''(t/</em>]][[Special:Contributions/NJA|<em style="color:#63D1F4">c)</em>]]'''</small> 15:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I have to disagree. Editing other users talk pages is indeed [[Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments|bad practice]] despite having good intentions - per the notice given - and is also fairly pointless on individual user talk pages vs. article talk pages - where the real cleanup is in fact necessary - not to mention being rather resource intensive. A lot of this should already be apparent, and I recommend that you might give some reconsideration as to the activity and purpose of your bot - whose functionality would be much better served on article talk pages. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 16:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Srobak, you will see that "fixing links" is listed as an appropriate edit to another user's comment. This bot is running through pages which are in a renamed category, and fixing links to the category, which is very useful. And the bot may in future be fixing categories in articles too. Regarding the resource issue, [[WP:BOT|bot policy]] points out that performance is unlikely to be an issue, and not something to worry too much about. Also, I would not belittle the time Nja has put into this by saying that you personally feel that there are more important things to do. While there may well be, that does certainly not mean we should ignore smaller jobs. Best, - [[User:Kingpin13|Kingpin]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Kingpin13|13]]</sup> ([[User talk:Kingpin13|talk]]) 17:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==[[AKG Acoustics]]== |
|||
Listed below is your reference.[[User:DeeplnsideMioAkiyama|DeeplnsideMioAkiyama]] ([[User talk:DeeplnsideMioAkiyama|talk]]) 19:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/166676972 |
|||
:References go in articles - like the 7 historical notes above yours (see the superscript?). They do not go in individual user talk pages. |
|||
:: Can you please point me to the directions on how to add references? Thanks.[[User:DeeplnsideMioAkiyama|DeeplnsideMioAkiyama]] ([[User talk:DeeplnsideMioAkiyama|talk]]) 20:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::: Nevermind.[[User:DeeplnsideMioAkiyama|DeeplnsideMioAkiyama]] ([[User talk:DeeplnsideMioAkiyama|talk]]) 20:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Re:February 2010 == |
|||
Ummmmm...excuse me? Yes, you are correct; it is generally prohibited to refactoring others' talk comments. I blocked DeeplnsideMioAkiyama for Disruptive Editing and Vandalism. Following that, I reverted all their recent vandalism. Their edits to your talk page were vandalism so fine, my bad. On a side note, I realize it's very difficult for you to do so, but I would like to remind you to make a conscious effort to [[WP:AGF|AGF]] and consider the whole situation before acting rashly and immaturely. I understand you may be feeling self-righteous and angry but this but know templating with a vandalism warning is absolutely not the correct manner to address others' mistakes. Good Day. -'''[[User:Fastily|<span style='font-family: "Trebuchet MS"; color:#4B0082'><big>F</big><small>ASTILY</small>]]''' <sup><small>[[User talk:Fastily|<font color="#4B0082">(T<small>ALK</small>)</font>]]</small></sup></span> 00:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Parts of your message above are a bit cryptic - but I will do my best to interpret and address. To start, I might suggest that you take your own advice about ''considering the whole situation'' - as viewing the edit history by DeeplnsideMioAkiyama in both [[AKG Acoustics]] and on my talk page would yield that he was obviously a new user. Granted he should have been sandboxing to learn, but I don't believe it to warrant [[wp:bite]]ing and blocking - so I would request you to give some consideration to reversing the block. To that effect - his contributions to AKG ''were'' in fact valid, and other than his deletion of the K-240 - were not destructive or vandalism in nature. Regarding your reversions - it would probably do best to actually review the pages and contents individually before kicking off a blanket reversion. Not doing so is '''not''' editing in good faith or good practice on your part, nor is not realizing that you are about conduct a destructive edit on a talk page. The assumption of good faith would indeed actually require ''some'' good faith vs. sweeping, blanket edits without bothering to actually look at what those edits are. Lastly - you were '''not''' issued a vandalism warning - or any warning, but merely a General Note advising that it is in bad form to conduct such edits on talk pages, especially on user talk pages. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 03:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Tim Robbins == |
|||
Regarding [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Tim_Robbins&curid=269416&diff=342969052&oldid=342960269 this revert]: Please follow your own advice and actually ''look'' to see what you're undoing before you undo it. What you "undid" was proper formatting of the reference and updating of the filmography coding. I did ''not'' remove a reference there. Please look closer next time prior to handing out advice to "Read it before further editing." [[User:Wildhartlivie|Wildhartlivie]] ([[User talk:Wildhartlivie|talk]]) 18:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Don't template the regulars == |
|||
I generally don't template established users. If you have an issue with an edit I made, a discussion is more useful. [[User:Pdcook|PDCook]] ([[User talk:Pdcook|talk]]) 02:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:You are free to template whoever you chose - as am I, and I will - established or not. A bad edit is a bad edit. As an established user you shouldn't have to be advised not to create internal links to articles which do not exist. Redlinking is in bad form. If you wish to create an article and ''then'' link to, please feel free to do so. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::There is a good essay about this. See [[Wikipedia:Don't_template_the_regulars]]. [[User:Pdcook|PDCook]] ([[User talk:Pdcook|talk]]) 02:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Reversion of my addition == |
|||
Please provide a reason why you reverted my link to [[snowmobile stud]] on the [[snowmobile]] article. [[User:Pdcook|PDCook]] ([[User talk:Pdcook|talk]]) 02:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:See above, as well as the edit summary for the reversion. It is also bad form to start redundant dialogue on the same page. Please stop. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 02:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I did not make a redlink. The fact that the link is blue should be indicative of this. [[User:Pdcook|PDCook]] ([[User talk:Pdcook|talk]]) 02:19, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Your previous link was to a blank page, and was a redlink. Thanks for updating it. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 02:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::It was not a redlink after my second edit. Maybe you saw [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Snowmobile&diff=next&oldid=343025467 this version], in which I messed up the link, but within a minute fixed it with [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Snowmobile&diff=next&oldid=343025467 this edit]. [[User:Pdcook|PDCook]] ([[User talk:Pdcook|talk]]) 02:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Indeed - i missed it. My apologies - sometimes quick on the trigger due to the large number of bad faith and vandal edits to snowmobile. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 02:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== re: [[Phil Collins]] == |
|||
I still believe having 3 paragraphs dedicated to the case is putting [[WP:UNDUE|undue weight]] on the issue. One paragraph could just as well sum it all up. [[User:Nymf|Nymf]] <sub>[[User_talk:Nymf|talk]]/[[Special: Contributions/Nymf|contr.]]</sub> 19:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:That I agree with a bit... I thought it to be a bit long in the tooth for this article as well, and have been mulling over how to condense it a bit more without having it lose substance. One paragraph is even a bit repetitive. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 19:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Eric Clapton == |
|||
I have not changed the English variant on this page. I have reverted changes from UK to US English on a page about a UK person which is principally written in UK English. This is in accordance with Wikipedia policy - I have reverted such changes in the opposite direction in other articles. I shall continue to revert such changes, and I shall report you for edit warring if you continue to make such changes without discussion. I might add that it is exceedingly impolite to use a template on the talk page of an established user. -- [[User:Ian Dalziel|Ian Dalziel]] ([[User talk:Ian Dalziel|talk]]) 15:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:I didn't make any changes. Pay attention and '''''do not ever''''' issue threats. That is also the only word in the entire article that is written in BE. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 16:40, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::You twice undid my revert of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Eric_Clapton&action=historysubmit&diff=338701958&oldid=338669998| this change]]. I could only find "storey" and "honour" which were regional variants - both UK. Can you find any US English? (Other than in titles, that is?) You pay attention, please - I reverted an unnecessary change in accordance with [[WP:ENGVAR]]. I also attempted to discuss it here, but you ignored that and proceeded to add a warning template to my talk page. -- [[User:Ian Dalziel|Ian Dalziel]] ([[User talk:Ian Dalziel|talk]]) 18:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::That was '''a month ago''', dude - and you reverted it back and I left it alone per your cite ''then'', and has nothing to do with ''now.'' The most recent template was '''only''' a template, in efforts to get people to quit screwing with English forms per [[WP:Manual_of_Style]]. The constant flip-flopping - regardless who is doing it and to which form - is annoying un-necessary. Just because someone changed it does not ''mean'' you ''have'' to change it back - even though they did not need to change it in the first place either. If you notice - I also templated the person who changed it in the first place. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 20:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::It was you who asked for consistency, was it not? I reverted a pointless change which made the article inconsistent. I did NOT do what your template says - I have never changed anything to my preferred variation. I have reverted such changes in both directions and will continue to do so. -- [[User:Ian Dalziel|Ian Dalziel]] ([[User talk:Ian Dalziel|talk]]) 23:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==The O.C.== |
|||
Just to let you know I have restored [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=The_O.C.&action=historysubmit&diff=347129683&oldid=347102224 this edit] which you had reverted of an IP. It was infact correct (see [[Trey Atwood]]). I have also [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3A99.169.250.133&action=historysubmit&diff=347129525&oldid=347102447 removed the warning] from their user page. Please be careful in future and [[WP:AGF]]. A level 4 warning for a correct edit is hardly going to encourage that user contribute constructively again. Best, [[User:Rambo's Revenge|<b><font color="#E32636">Rambo's Revenge</font></b>]] [[User talk:Rambo's Revenge|<small><b><font color="#FFA500">(talk)</font></b></small>]] 18:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: oops indeed - I have not had my morning coffee... was looking at one article while editing another LOL. Thanks. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Your message == |
|||
With respect to your recent post, you should be aware of several points. Firstly, as mentioned by another editor earlier on this page, it is generally considered bad form to use templates and heavy-handed warning messages on established users. Secondly, please note that the edits in question were reverted because of new problems they introduced, problems that had previously been explained to the editor in question. I also explained the rationale for the reverts to that editor, especially how it is unrealistic to expect others to manually correct flaws in the script when it is easier to ''correct'' the script and re-process with it. (In fact, I even offered to help.) --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 18:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::I did not template you. That was hand-written as your reversion introduced multiple problems to the page in question and further seemed to demonstrate potential harassment, and even advised how to better go about dealing with troublesome users rather than follow them around on WP. However, as I also mentioned in response to the earlier editor - if there is a fitting template for an infraction - it will be utilized. The establishment of an account does not negate ones ability or likelihood of their bad edits, abuse or infractions. If the shoe fits, it shall be worn. To that effect - it is equally bad form to conduct blanket reversions without fully understanding the scope of those reversions and the impact they have on articles that you do not normally contribute to or bother to review prior to executing said reversion. In addition - none of the problems that were introduced in your original discussion in his thread were in effect on the page in question, and as I stated in my original post to your existing discussion thread - your reversion actually re-introduced problems with that page. This is another reason why blanket reversions without proper, manual review are a bad thing and should be avoided. Lastly - as you had an existing thread on the topic on your page - your deletion of my post there while at the same time responding to it in your edit notes, it prompted an out-of-context response from me on your page and a subsequent out-of-context post by you on this one. This too is in bad form, and there was no need to fragment the discussion thread in the way you did. It is interesting and odd that a WP administrator needs so many of their own bad form items pointed out to them. Please use better discretion in the future on all these and other items which are listed in your talk pages as they are not conducive to the mission of WP. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 19:12, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, but you're presuming an awful lot in your posts. One, your claim that I didn't review the edits is utterly incorrect, as is your spurious claim of "following". Many of the articles in question have been on my watchlist for years, as is easily evidenced by an extensive history of contributions to television-related articles. When dozens of articles pop up on a watchlist at the same time, with edits that introduce problems, that is cause for concern. You're also completely incorrect in presuming that there was no review involved. The simple fact is that it is easier to adjust the problems with the script and re-process the articles than it is to expect other editors to manually edit each and every article to repair the newly created problems. That was clearly explained on the editor's talk page, as I'm sure you've seen. --'''[[User:Ckatz|Ckatz]]'''''<small><sup>[[User_talk:Ckatz|<font color="green">chat</font>]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Ckatz|<font color="red">spy</font>]]</sub></small>'' 19:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::::You aren't paying attention. I'm done. This will just have to be dealt with another way. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 20:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== RFC/U notification == |
|||
Greetings. Because you have twice mentioned civility issues to [[User:Prestonmcconkie]], I felt you might wish to know that I've opened an [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prestonmcconkie|RFC/U]] about this issue. Thanks. [[User:Omnedon|Omnedon]] ([[User talk:Omnedon|talk]]) 18:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Talkback== |
|||
{{talkback|86.139.197.245}} |
|||
:And to confirm what that Talkback says - it was me accidentally editing from a logged-out browser. -- [[User:Boing! said Zebedee|<font color="darkred">Boing<b>!</b></font>]] [[User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#top|<font color="darkgreen">said Zebedee</font>]] 16:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Image galleries== |
|||
Hi Srobak, greetings from [[Aotearoa New Zealand]]. [[User:Bwmoll3]] asked me to let you know of any guidelines re image galleries. The guideline is at [[WP:IG]], also see [[:Category:Wikipedia image galleries]]. In general, any large collection of unannotated pictures of a USAF base would be better as an image collection on Commons. A couple of recent deletions->transfers of pages to Commons have happened this way. Kind regards [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 20:13, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Greetings Buckshot06 and thanks for the response. I have read over the information contained in the [[WP:IG]] link, and while I understand the guidelines listed - I don't think I can completely agree with the qualification of the emblem removals on [[JBLM_McChord_Field]] as exactly falling within those guidelines. Their nature are of an encyclopedic reference as they are emblems and logos of current and past assigned squadrons at the base. They are not pictures of the base itself as implied. They more resemble the images contained within the article for the US Air Force Portal, US Military Portal, etc. - than they do of an image gallery of the base. True those images were a bit large and did not contain any annotations - but those are both circumstances which are very easily changed and would bring far more encyclopedic value to the article than even the 3 images currently contained within just the '''Operational History''' portion of the article. That being said - if indeed it is still determined that the emblems are not appropriate within the article itself, then at the very least it would be prudent to capture and move those images over to the Image Galleries or The Commons and properly referencing them to the article(s) they were removed from, prior to removing them from the article. To date, this has not been done. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 21:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks for your note. My usual practice is to exchange talkpage messages on each others' talk pages, which is why I was not aware of your response. [[User:Bwmoll3]] gave me the impression that we were talking about pictures. However emblems are much the same. All are - often in historically different versions - accessible at the individual units' page. As a gallery, they do not illustrate directly activities on the base itself, which is the critical point. This is different from putting the historical emblem of a newly formed unit directly adjacent the section of text in which the unit first is associated with the base. The situation would be different if you had a photo of unit activities on the base which happened to show the emblem. However again in this case one would place it in text, rather than in a separate gallery. |
|||
::This is why I argue that unit emblem galleries in the base articles are inappropriate. The proper place, as the policies indicate, is on Commons, well tied into the article by links. I agree this changeover should not be done precipitously. But if the emblem (or image) gallery has been deleted, why reinsert the gallery temporarily just to make a [[WP:POINT]]? If the images are now inaccessible to you, I'll place any version you would like to name in your userspace preparatory to a move to Commons, and if you want other help, please don't hesitate to ask. (Admin rights have got to be useful for something!!) |
|||
::I'm quite happy to have this particular discussion on your talkpage. But please again add a header on my talkpage to say you've replied. Kind regards from Aotearoa, [[User:Buckshot06|Buckshot06]] [[User_talk:Buckshot06|(talk)]] 00:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:::Nobody re-inserted anything, or made a [[WP:POINT]]. As I said - I think that such emblems serve a purpose in the articles - so long as properly sized and annotated... nothing more was said and no other action was taken. I do think that the emblems and images in question should certainly be moved over to Commons if they are not going to go back into the article, as at the moment they are completely lost unless someone wants to go back in the history and find them... but this is only one of a few military related articles that I follow. If this is the type of editing that he and/or others have been doing - then there is the potential for hundreds if not thousands of lost images. Again - I think it would be prudent of the editors who are removing those images, like [[User:Bwmoll3]] to place them in the Commons so they are not lost. They clearly do have significant value to the bases they relate to, the articles, and wiki in general. [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 13:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
* One of the good things about Wikipedia is that nothing is really "lost", as the image gallery being discussed is easily found in a previous version of the article. Unless the images are deleted; which is something that was not done. I have mixed thoughts on this issue also, as unit emblems are part of the history as well as a symbol of the current units assigned to the bases. Now, while we don't want to have a large gallery of emblems on the page, a small < 5 gallery of images I DO think is appropriate. However, the present guidelines discourage that.. and I believe that should be revised. Now, with regards to historical emblems; it's not difficult to create an image gallery over on Commons.. and also that is where all of the graphics should be placed. PNG format with transparent backgrounds. I've spent a great deal of time moving many graphics over there and converting to that format. Having a gallery on commons for a base, can include all sorts of emblems; photos, or anything else, and can be linked to the page easily.. Those are my thoughts on this.. Regards.. [[User:Bwmoll3|Bwmoll3]] ([[User talk:Bwmoll3|talk]]) 14:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks Bwmoll3 - I agree with most of your thoughts. The only real thing I have issue with I guess is the "it is never lost cause it is in the article history" approach. Most non-editors/contributors do not go back and look in the history of the article(s). As time goes by - those edits that link to the images will be buried - essentially "lost" to the common end-user of WP. This is one reason why I think they should be moved and associated asap. Just my $.02 [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 17:45, 1 April 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Attacking Editors== |
|||
Hi Srobak! I got your warning about attacking editors, but I'm not sure if it was warranted. Was it me accusing someone of being a random IP? I would like a bit of clarity. :) Thanks! [[User:Andrzejbanas|Andrzejbanas]] ([[User talk:Andrzejbanas|talk]]) 15:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
: Whoops - that was supposed to go on their talk page... not yours. My bad. LOL... deleting in a moment [[User:Srobak|Srobak]] ([[User talk:Srobak#top|talk]]) 15:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC) |
|||
==Thanks for your advices!== |
|||
Nice to feel not alone on Wikipedia. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Marc Spoddle|Marc Spoddle]] ([[User talk:Marc Spoddle|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Marc Spoddle|contribs]]) 13:20, 11 June 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
== Phil Collins == |
|||
Phil Collins IS filming a show at ITV studios in London on 28th June I was e-mailed by the official Phil Collins fan club to pre-register for tickets and this information is also being promoted on the Official Genesis Website. |
|||
http://www.genesis-news.com/news-Phil-Collins-Registration-for-London-TVSpecial-now-open-n164.html |
|||
have amended my original post but I think the information is valid in the 2009-Preent section as it is the only live appearance by Phil Collins in the UK this year to be announced. |
|||
"Register now for tickets to attend the Phil Collins ITV special: One Night Only |
|||
Phil Collins returns to London to host a one-off music spectacular for ITV, Phil Collins: One Night Only. The show will be recorded at The ITV London Studios on Monday 28th June. Doors open at 6:30pm. |
|||
If you would like to be informed when booking opens, then register your interest now. |
|||
Special ticket allocation for fans |
|||
SRO audiences have reserved a special allocation of tickets for Phil Collins fans. |
|||
To access this allocation, state "Two Hearts" in the "Comments & Information" field on the application. |
|||
To unsubscribe from future Phil Collin's updates, click here" |
Latest revision as of 00:12, 19 March 2022
Archive: 2009 Archive: 2010 Archive: 2011
Hi! I noticed that you removed my prod from that article, saying that you'd found the musician to be notable, but you didn't add the sources you found. Could you stick them on the article, so no later person makes the same mistake? I didn't find the needed sources when I looked, but it certainly won't be the first time someone else found sources I missed. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
- In addition to the decline above, you were mistaken about the application of WP:TPG to a user talk page - it is perfectly allowable to have personal conversations on user talk pages, even non-English conversations, as long as it isn't carried too far, i.e. WP:MYSPACE. —DoRD (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM makes no such subjective statements or allowances, but instead states very clearly that " talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages". Srobak (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- User talk pages are not treated the same as talk pages in other namespaces - please read WP:UP for clarification. Particularly, Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit and In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. —DoRD (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- So the rules and policies (such as WP:SPEAKENGLISH and WP:NOTFORUM) apply, except when they don't. Fantastic logic - and people wonder why WP is such a mess. There is absolutely no distinction made in WP:SPEAKENGLISH, WP:NOTFORUM or numerous other policy and guideline articles between their application in article talk pages and user talk pages. In fact - WP:SPEAKENGLISH reads as to apply directly to user talk pages. If there is a distinction to be made - then it needs to be in those articles to ensure proper, uniform application of policies and guidelines. Srobak (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- Whatever. I give up. —DoRD (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) And how do edits in another language negatively effect the quality of the encyclopedia exactly? Remember that rules and policies are secondary to the purpose of WP:5, esp. #4 and #5. Please remember, that our role as contributors is not to enforce rules but further the project. It is fairly clear that we don't think your recent contributions have furthered the project. Once you have taken an (albeit forced) couple day break and had some delicious warm drinks and low stress days, please provide constructive solutions to help further the project when you return! Best wishes, Sadads (talk) 18:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- I have been. It's ridiculous that some folks don't understand that guidelines, policies, the adherence to and the enforcement thereof are indeed quite necessary to further the project. I didn't create the policies or guidelines - so your question is better geared for an RFC. Anyhow - it's downright scary for the project as a whole when it is actually an admin who fails to recognize the need and purpose of the above. Might want to think about why not only do they exist but why they are necessary as well as the need to for users to abide by them before making another statement like that. Now - as for your edit comment - there are far more silly things on WP (many of which honestly have no place here) than a legitimate discussion (no one is yelling about injustice or anything else) in my talk page. If you do not find substance to it - then you are free to change the channel. Srobak (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- So the rules and policies (such as WP:SPEAKENGLISH and WP:NOTFORUM) apply, except when they don't. Fantastic logic - and people wonder why WP is such a mess. There is absolutely no distinction made in WP:SPEAKENGLISH, WP:NOTFORUM or numerous other policy and guideline articles between their application in article talk pages and user talk pages. In fact - WP:SPEAKENGLISH reads as to apply directly to user talk pages. If there is a distinction to be made - then it needs to be in those articles to ensure proper, uniform application of policies and guidelines. Srobak (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- User talk pages are not treated the same as talk pages in other namespaces - please read WP:UP for clarification. Particularly, Traditionally Wikipedia offers wide latitude to users to manage their user space as they see fit and In general, it is usual to avoid substantially editing another's user and user talk pages other than where it is likely edits are expected and/or will be helpful. If unsure, ask. —DoRD (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
- WP:NOTFORUM makes no such subjective statements or allowances, but instead states very clearly that " talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles. Talk pages are not mere general discussion pages". Srobak (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It seems that this discussion has been rather missing the point. It is perfectly true that all contributions to English Wikipedia should be in English, including those on user talk pages. However,if someone posts in another language on a user talk page, then the thing to do is to politely explain the situation to them, not to summarily remove their message. It is not acceptable to remove another user's comments on a talk page other than your own, except under extreme circumstances, and a comment's being in another language is not one of those circumstances. In addition, Wikipedia's edit policy is, essentially "don't edit war", not "don't edit war unless you think that you are right". No matter how convinced you are that posting a message in another language is so evil and inexcusable that it must be removed, and no matter how convinced you are that Wikipedia's policies support such removal, you were not justified in edit warring. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're right - you have indeed been missing the point - which is in fact a much larger issue than what you seem to be pigeon-holing. No one is arguing about the edit-warring anymore. Try and keep up. Srobak (talk) 04:22, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
January 2012
[edit]{{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}
, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:07, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Hi. I am sorry, but I feel I have to do this after reviewing your recent contribution history. I see a catalog of failing to act collegially, of inability to face disagreement in a civil manner, of edit-warring over various issues, of repeatedly and inappropriately accusing people of vandalism, of repeatedly deleting other people's comments on Talk pages, of issuing inappropriate templated warnings (and continuing after being advised against it), of accusing people of all sorts of things they are not guilty of, and of attacking people quite nastily after they try to interact with you in a civil and friendly manner. I'm afraid this kind of behavior is simply not acceptable here, and I think you should remain blocked until you make a commitment to change your battlefield approach to interaction with others, and can convince the community that you will be an asset to the project. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC) (PS: Any admin is welcome to review my block, but if you do, please have a look back over the history of this talk page to see removed interactions, block notice, past warnings, etc, and check the user's recent contribution history) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Hahahaha.... Srobak (talk) 12:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- I can see that you have done good work here in the past, and I'd like to be able to unblock you as soon as possible, but recently your approach to other users really has been way too aggressive - and it really is damaging to the project. So can I please ask you to review your recent interactions with others, and try to listen to what other people say rather than treating everything as an attack and launching a counter-attack every time. You also appear to be going over the top in terms of "law enforcement" here, attempting, for example, to dictate what people can and cannot say on user talk pages (removing people's comments and flooding them with warnings in the process). Please try to remember that Wikipedia is supposed to be a friendly and collegial project in which we try to help each other, and not a rule-following police state where people get slapped down for every minor perceived infraction of "the law" -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sockpuppetry
[edit]Re Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srobak - registering sock accounts is not the way to get back to editing Wikipedia. Your account here is indefinitely, but not necessarily infinitely, blocked, and if you wish to rejoin the community, what you need to do is convince us that you understand the problems that got you blocked, and that you are able and willing to adjust your style of interaction with other Wikipedia editors. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
- Srobak, please do not refactor other people's comments - the "not" in the above message is correct and should be there -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 08:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- For the love of all that's Holy... I did not re-factor other people's comments. I restored a comment which you left to the state in which you left it. It was previously re-factored here by Vanisaac, in violation of WP:TPO, which reads in part "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning". As the edit in question did change the meaning of the comment 180 degrees in fact, it also violated WP:MINOR - which states in part that "any change that affects the meaning of an article is not minor, even if the edit concerns a single word; for example, the addition or removal of "not", which can change the meaning of a sentence, is a major edit." Ironic that the example used in the policy article is in fact the exact word which was changed on my talk page! It is a real shame when one admin doesn't pay attention to the accuracy of edit history (that would be you), and when another violates 2x WP policies in a single edit (that would be Vanisaac) and when both of them need to have these things pointed out to them. Those who cannot understand and follow such simple, basic practices and guidelines have absolutely no business in position to police others into doing such (especially when they already are). If the meaning of your statement was incorrect - then per policy it needed to be changed by you - and not result in you barking at me for restoring what you posted to the state in which you posted it. Srobak (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Vanisaac edit was done in good faith, correcting an obvious typo. It might be nice to actually thank him for this rather than creating another edit war, especially as this sort of behaviour is what you are blocked for. If you want to be unblocked then it will need an indication that you have altered you approach taking a less confrontational atitude. --Salix (talk): 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- First - there is no edit war. You need to take a look at the edit history. Second - good faith or not - per TPO it is not to be done. Third - even if it is obvious it is still TPO. Fourth - I was not being confrontational. I reverted a TPO & MINOR vio on my own talk page and was then "confronted" by being wrongfully accused of TPO. In response I explained the situation - which is something I should not have to do - because those involved ought to know better. Why stuff this obvious needs to be explained to folks who certainly ought to be able to figure it out is mind boggling. Srobak (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- You're welcome, Salix. As to the edit in question, I considered it - and continue to do so - to be a minor grammatical fix, and as such, perfectly acceptable for marking as a minor edit. Moreover, as the intent of the edit was a good-faith attempt to clarify another's comment, and that edit was, in fact, welcomed by the original contributor, I was not in violation of WP:TPO (see the first example of acceptable edits). In the end, Srobak, I think the largest source of your problems can be boiled down to a single principle: WP:AGF. If you assumed that my edit was a good-faith effort to clarify a murky grammatical point, then none of this happens. Admitedly, I probably set an unintentional trap for you by making that edit, but you stepped in it all yourself. Just ask yourself, "Was Vanisaac trying to make things better?" If you honestly can't answer "Yes" to that question, you probably don't belong in a collaborative environment like Wikipedia. VanIsaacWScontribs 00:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Vanisaac edit was done in good faith, correcting an obvious typo. It might be nice to actually thank him for this rather than creating another edit war, especially as this sort of behaviour is what you are blocked for. If you want to be unblocked then it will need an indication that you have altered you approach taking a less confrontational atitude. --Salix (talk): 16:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Vanisaac simply fixed a typo for me, and I think it should have been blatantly obvious that I'd accidentally missed out the word "not" from that sentence. The Wikipedia TPO rules are meant to be interpreted sensibly, not blindly followed, and it would have been pointless for me to revert that correction and then redo it myself, don't you think? Also, we don't generally go round reverting edits simply because someone didn't check the "minor edit" box, and it's not so applicable to Talk pages anyway - the piece you quoted says "the meaning of an article" (my emphasis). I'm sure you thought you were doing right by trying to enforce rules, but the blind enforcement of "rules" and becoming aggressive with people you see as breaching them is a large part of what got you blocked here - it's just not the way Wikipedia operates -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:10, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Aaaaaaand we are once again back to "the rules and policies apply - except when they don't." Lovely, circular logic. Srobak (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's more that most are really intended to be guidelines rather than hard and fast rules, and need contextual interpretation, which is why we have WP:IAR. Or do you honestly think it's better to blindly enforce "rules" over obvious common sense? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nope - but when I was doing things that were obvious, common sense - I was given the rod by admins saying "that's not policy - those aren't the rules". It gets very tiring trying to keep WP accurate and vandal free when overly restricted by administrative double-standards and double-talk. Some have even gone so far as to actually harbor habitual detractors to the project by applying rules where common sense should prevail, and applying common sense where rules should prevail. Let's pick a cake and eat it. Srobak (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sure there are inconsistencies over the whole of such a large project, but we're not going to solve that by blindly sticking to the letter of rules and reverting an obviously correct typo fix - and then arguing it to death using "rules". I'm trying to help you understand why your over-bureaucratic focus on rules is not the way we work here, and that you need to change that approach to get unblocked (and others are saying the same things to you). In the end, though, it's up to you whether you listen or not, and I'm not going to argue this one any further -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, just one more general point about "rules". Some aspects of policy are more important than others, and so are closer to being actual rules than others, and the trick is in using judgment to understand which is which. For example, WP:BLP policy is very important, and we really need to avoid doing harm to living people (and as a secondary consideration, avoid libel suits). But many aspects of talk page policy, using good edit summaries, not using the "minor edit" checkbox, etc, carry far less importance, and they need to be treated differently. So someone adding a libelous claim to a BLP needs to be dealt with more severely than, say, someone saying hello to someone else in a language other than English on their talk page. Intelligent judgment is what's needed, based on the context itself, the balance of good and bad being done, etc -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Nope - but when I was doing things that were obvious, common sense - I was given the rod by admins saying "that's not policy - those aren't the rules". It gets very tiring trying to keep WP accurate and vandal free when overly restricted by administrative double-standards and double-talk. Some have even gone so far as to actually harbor habitual detractors to the project by applying rules where common sense should prevail, and applying common sense where rules should prevail. Let's pick a cake and eat it. Srobak (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's more that most are really intended to be guidelines rather than hard and fast rules, and need contextual interpretation, which is why we have WP:IAR. Or do you honestly think it's better to blindly enforce "rules" over obvious common sense? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Aaaaaaand we are once again back to "the rules and policies apply - except when they don't." Lovely, circular logic. Srobak (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Also see WP:NOTBURO. —DoRD (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
- Good point - as it says there, "Do not follow an overly strict interpretation of the letter of policy without consideration for the principles of policies. If the rules truly prevent you from improving the encyclopedia, ignore them." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
The Olive Branch: A Dispute Resolution Newsletter (Issue #1)
[edit]Welcome to the first edition of The Olive Branch. This will be a place to semi-regularly update editors active in dispute resolution (DR) about some of the most important issues, advances, and challenges in the area. You were delivered this update because you are active in DR, but if you would prefer not to receive any future mailing, just add your name to this page.
In this issue:
- Background: A brief overview of the DR ecosystem.
- Research: The most recent DR data
- Survey results: Highlights from Steven Zhang's April 2012 survey
- Activity analysis: Where DR happened, broken down by the top DR forums
- DR Noticeboard comparison: How the newest DR forum has progressed between May and August
- Discussion update: Checking up on the Wikiquette Assistance close debate
- Proposal: It's time to close the Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts noticeboard. Agree or disagree?
--The Olive Branch 19:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Heat 1995 genre
[edit]Hi, there is a constant changing of the genre of the 1995 film Heat. Your input on the talk page would be a big help.OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2014 (UTC)