User talk:Born2cycle/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Born2cycle. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Herman Cain edit warring

Just an FYI in case you did not realize, you reverted three times in exactly two hours on Herman Cain, all without discussing your reverts on the talk page (which you are doing now, I'll be replying there after this). That does not violate the letter of WP:3RR, but it is a form of edit warring and would already be blockable since 3RR is a bright line, not an entitlement. I have no interest in getting you blocked (and of course would not do so myself as I'm involved), but if anyone comes by to revert you (I will not for now, discussion is preferred) I strongly advise you to refrain from reverting to your preferred version yet again.

Two other editors have objected to the length of the material you want to keep in and that means you need to work with them rather than edit warring. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:22, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

My username is Born2cycle. Please check the talk page again before you say I reverted without discussion.

My first revert was at 21:09 and that was about whether the allegations belonged at all based on being "unprovable". Arzel (talk · contribs) removed all of the material with edit summary "Unprovable allegations have no place here." [1]. I reverted that with an explanatory edit summary "they have sworn affidavits from witnesses who corroborate the story - it's not unprovable" and followed up on the Talk page immediately at 21:13 with further explanation[2]. This was not challenged by anyone, including not by you, even though 30 minutes later at 21:42 you went and removed much of this content [3]. Your edit summary said, "...see talk", but you didn't do that yourself!

In fact, two minutes prior to your content removal, at 21:40, Nandt1 (talk · contribs) contributed to that discussion, noting that BLP explicitly provides for adding exactly such material, as long as it is properly cited [4]. I found that to be ironic considering your content removal, discussed this on the talk page accordingly at 21:47, [5], and then reverted your removal[6], at 21:48, again noting the ongoing discussion on the talk page in the edit summary in which you were not participating.

Then, at 21:53, you finally did engage on the talk page[7], though still ignoring everything I had written, and, at 21:56, you again removed this material [8], with an edit summary that said, "please see the section I started on the talk page and engage there before re-adding.". Okay, fine. Ignore everything I'd already discussed at 21:13 and 21:47 and start a new section. So I engaged there too, at 22:57[9], and then did a 3rd revert at 23:06 in accordance with what I explained there[10]. I see now that you did, finally, at 23:36[11], respond to something I wrote on the talk page, and I'll address that there too, but even that was after you posted this comment here at 23:22[12].

So I'm perplexed at your above comment... "all without discussing your reverts"! I discussed ALL of my reverts! It was you who was ignoring the talk page while you were reverting! --Born2cycle (talk) 08:12, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously know your username, as I am on your user talk page. Surely you realize that.

Let me come back to why I come here, namely your edit warring, which you pointedly do not admit to (I did notice that!). Here are the three edits I am talking about that you did [13] [14] [15]. Those are all straight reverts and you did three in 2 hours. Had you done one more it would have been a 3RR violation, hence my warning, though even with those three you are clearly edit warring. This is a simple fact and it is also a problem and something for which you can be blocked.

As to the talk page, I missed your 5:47 comment which came as I was typing my first comment, which I made immediately after the first edit. My point was slightly different than the preceding discussion so I started a new section explaining my edit which shortened the text--nothing nefarious there, people start new sections all the time as you no doubt know, and my edit summary mentioned the talk page as the place to go for further explanation of the edit.

But that's very much a side issue and I realize now I should not have even brought up the talk page issue without looking at it more closely. It's good that you are engaging on the talk page, but it does not give you license to make three reversion in two hours, reverting two editors as you do so. That is my point, and I hope you can simply accept that you cannot do that in the future, and that further reverting in a 24 hour period will likely result in a block.

I'm not really interested in debating this with you as the policy is quite cut and dried, as are your three reverts, I'm simply giving you a warning about edit warring, so I hope we can leave it there and instead discuss the content issues. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern, but I respectfully disagree with your accusation that I was edit warring. Edit warring "occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion." I didn't do that, as explained above.

Again, the first revert was explained, and no one, including you, disagreed, so that was a resolved issue. I did my best to engage in discussion, but you reverted my edit without discussion. When another editor noted how BLP explicitly supported inclusion of the material in question, and no one, including you, disputed that, I again edited accordingly.

But, yeah, with respect to 3RR, I'm technically on the edge. I guess I'm willing to risk that in trying to make the article better - more informative rather than less informative for our readers, and in compliance with everything supported by broad consensus. Are you one of those wiki lawyers? --Born2cycle (talk) 09:18, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, you were edit warring. You were not "trying to resolve the disagreement by discussion," you were reverting changes that you did not like, and three times you overrode the (very related) changes of two other editors. The fact that you said things on the talk page during this time is not evidence of trying to resolve the disagreement--in order for that to be true you would also have to stop reverting, not just say something and then revert.

So, for example, I made one change to the article which cut down on the length and combined sections (note: this was not a revert, e.g. a simple "undo" of the last edit, it was a new edit that altered the existing text). I then left a note on the talk page, but while doing that you had already reverted. My one revert, at 5:56, was in part in the hopes that it would bring you to respond to my comment on the talk page, which you have. I have not reverted since then and am now discussing with you. Had you, for example, refrained from your 7:06 edit (which came after a talk page comment that basically said "my way is correct") and instead waited for a continued dialogue, you would not, to my mind, have been edit warring.

The key here is for all concerned parties to leave off reverting--even if it's on the "wrong" version, which it always is for someone--and talk about it. I did that after just one revert, but you reverted my edits twice, after having reverted another editor who made a similar change just before that. That's edit warring.

Finally, your statement that you're willing to risk violating a policy "to make the article better - more informative rather than less informative for our readers" is concerning. Your thoughts on what make the article better and my thoughts on that (and a third, fourth, and fifth persons) very often differ. We have to work together to find a consensus, which usually means compromise. Implicit in your comment is an "I know what's best, and I'll battle and break the rules if I have to in order to make the encyclopedia the way it should be." That's also a problem, and I hope you can see why and in general take on board these comments going forward. As to this specific issue I'll consider the matter closed for now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 09:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Again, you reverted without any discussion whatsoever. I did not. Had you joined me in the ongoing discussion on the talk page instead of editing in the first place, that would have been better. But whatever, you decided to edit; that's fine. But since you Boldly edited without engaging in the discussion, I Reverted and continued discussion, per BRD. But you didn't D, you reverted my revert! What's up with that? And you had the gall to suggest to me that engage on the talk page! Also, I still would not have reverted your edit, except that now there was another editor who apparently agreed with inclusion of the material you were removing, and you were still not engaging on the talk page.

Anyway, WP is much much bigger than my opinion or your opinion. What I think is best or what you think is best or what any one editor thinks is best is immaterial. What matters is what the community at large agrees is best. That's true consensus.

Now, what does the community at large think is best in this situation, or in any particular situation? Well, our best indicator is what has been written in policy and guidelines, which are supposed to reflect broad consensus. In this case we have what BLP, UNDUE, NPOV, etc. actually say.

So, if you can show me (not here, but at the article talk page) how broad consensus - as reflected in any of these relevant policies and guidelines - indicates this section should be culled, then we'll have something useful and productive to talk about and work out. But if you want to base the removal of content sourced in RS on personal taste or opinion, it's going to be very difficult to find any common ground whatsoever, much less actually come to an agreement. --Born2cycle (talk) 10:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Boldly--and it weren't that bold--making a change to something is completely allowable, and when it's followed up with a lengthy comment, as I did, it's more than okay. You reverted without responding to that comment, it was your second revert (the previous having been of an edit like mine), and then you reverted a third time after replying to my comment and not even bothering to wait for a reply. In total, you made three reverts while leaving exactly one note for one of the people you were reverting on the talk page, but without waiting for a response. That's not discussing on the talk page, that's reverting and typing on the talk page. Once you responded to the initial talk page comment I made, I reverted no more, and had only reverted once, which is an example of avoiding edit warring. I can't explain the difference any better than that.

If it helps, feel free to ask any admin at random to read through the above discussion and let you know if what you were doing is considered edit warring. Obviously I'm not getting through to you and I've already spent too much time arguing about something that shouldn't need this much explanation. Just don't be surprised if you run into trouble with some similar situation in the future--3 reverts in two hours when the dispute is a basic content matter is a problem, basically every single time. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 10:44, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Layout. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Transclusion

About this: Rather than working from the brief summary at WP:Consensus, it might make more sense to grab the complete text from the policy on article titles, which you'll find in the middle of WP:TITLECHANGES. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the articles...

As mentioned in the move discussions, Variations of the Sega Mega Drive, Mega-CD, List of Sega Mega Drive games, List of Sega Mega-CD games and Sega Multi-Mega may need to be changed to be inline with the Sega Genesis article, per previous changes. Such as [16] and [17]--SexyKick 15:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

How shall I interpret your silence? I know it's been a hectic day for you.--SexyKick 01:05, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry! I don't see this as a high priority, as Mega Drive is certainly a reasonable synonym for Sega Genesis. But, ideally, for the sake of consistency, they should all be moved. I suppose that means a multi-move RM request. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:52, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, a multi-move RM request sounds best...--SexyKick 13:57, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I have no idea how to do a multi move RM request. However, I can certainly help you out with the names. Variations of the Sega Genesis, Sega CD, List of Sega Genesis games, List of Sega CD games, and Sega CDX. Coincidentally, all the articles originally started with these names, apart from the Variations article which was split off from the main Sega Genesis article.--SexyKick 22:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, I can give you the fish, or teach you to fish. Actually, it's pretty easy, and all explained at WP:RM (more precisely, Wikipedia:Rm#Requesting_multiple_page_moves) (but read the single move request section just above it first). Go for it! --born2cYcle 22:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

And you can't because???? You were the one gung ho about getting the article moved to Sega Genesis, so please follow up with the follow up work.--SexyKick 22:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Do NOT...

ever redact another user's comments on a talk page where they are not clearly vandalism. Fair criticism is clearly not that. A repeat of that will see you at WP:ANI very, very, quickly indeed. Black Kite (t) 18:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Since you clearly can't read, I'll say it again. Do not do that again. If you can't cope with a civil agrument, don't get into one to begin with, and then try to hide it when you don't like the outcome. I hope this is very clear? Black Kite (t) 00:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't really the same thing as removing someone's comments. This is much more like...enclosing an off topic conversation in a spoilers box. It's not a big deal, people can still click to reveal the conversation.--SexyKick 01:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Which would be fine if B2C didn't keep doing it when he didn't like the outcome of the conversation; at which point it's effectively censorship. I was half tempted to start an RFCU on his continued behaviour like this; and this sort of thing makes me want to actually spend the time to do it. If I picked out every single little behavioural problem like this, rolled them up together with every piece of wikilawyering and incivility that he's performed in his personal naming crusade, and presented them as an RFCU, there would be little doubt about the outcome. As I've said to him twice during this conversation, I don't really want to do that do an editor that is clearly capable of so much more, but if needs must, then... Black Kite (t) 01:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The conversation has no outcome, or point for that matter, much less an outcome I don't like. That's why I hid it. I and others do that all the time. Anyway, if you think there is something there that makes it important to be unhidden for some reason, suit yourself. --born2cYcle 01:12, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

You're not kidding about him going on naming crusades (Sega Genesis and Mega Drive certainly makes me view him that way), but as such I have him on my watch list, and I see no incivility through hiding that particular conversation. I know nothing else, and certainly can't be bothered to read through pages of paragraphs looking for it. Anyway, this is the last time I'm sticking my nose into this, as I thought a neutral party might help.--SexyKick 01:15, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

B2C's attempts to limit Blackkite's disruptive behavior by hiding an off-topic conversation is not uncivil, though Blackkite's threat was. Furthermore, this clearly isn't a case of B2C not liking the outcome of an argument. Blackkite's bad faith edits and lies with this regard belie his true, disruptive intentions.LedRush (talk) 01:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Let's not blow this out of proportion. I just thought it was a pointless discussion that had nothing to do with the article and so hid it as is often and regularly done in situations like this. I can't begin to speak about Black Kites motivations or purpose, except to say I'm often baffled by assertions he makes, like the one here about me not liking the "outcome" of that discussion, or where he says that if he "picked out every single little behavioural problem like this" (as if this were a "little behavioural problem"), "rolled them up together with every piece of wikilawyering and incivility that he's performed" (???), "and presented them as an RFCU, there would be little doubt about the outcome". I've never been blocked. I've been the focus of one AN/I, years ago, and it was unanimously rejected by every uninvolved person who looked at it. So what he's talking about is anyone's guess, but he sure seems to believe he knows exactly what he's talking him, and I'm sure it's quite real, in his head. I mean, such comments suggest a distorted view of reality, and you can't reason with someone operating in an alternate reality. --born2cYcle 02:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Sadly, I think you're only actually deluding yourself if you don't know what I'm talking about, or you simply don't read comments - there are plenty on this page apart from mine - which don't fit with what you believe is right. I'll say it again - the "D" in WP:BRD stands for "discuss" - it does not stand for "discuss endlessly regardless of any conclusion reached, until every else gets so irritated that they give up". Black Kite (t) 08:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Third time: Please. Stay. Away. From. Me. [18] [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlack_Kite&action=historysubmit&diff=462040768&oldid=462039987 --born2cYcle 17:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Black Kite

I wouldn't worry about Black Kite. He pretends he is a stickler for civility, but he edits and takes admin actions in an extremely aggressive and abrasive manner, and seems to have a hard time admitting that his own actions often contribute to more incivility. Furthermore, he is a bully who is not afraid to use his power to intimidate others, even when the alleged infractions are incredibly minor. It's best to just recognize he's one of the people that makes the culture on Wikipedia very difficult to navigate and stay away from him.LedRush (talk) 21:12, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Totally untrue and bad faith statement, see User:Black Kite's talk page for a more lengthy response/discussion. User:Goldblooded ^{(Talk/Discuss)}^(Complain) 21:51, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

He has frequently been criticized for overly harsh punishments. Additionally, I have met with his bullying, threats and incivility first hand. You saying it is untrue without any diligence or inquiries into my reasoning speaks volumes of how fairly you are willing to view my opinions.LedRush (talk) 21:57, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Falafel

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Falafel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Done [19] --Born2cycle 22:20, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the support

And I admire your patience! Uniplex (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies)

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yog(h)urt

It's welcome to see someone aiming to resolve the conflict here. In the new summary section, I've removed the statement about the original version being written in American English: its use of "litre" surely better fits with British English (following Concise Oxford) or Canadian English (following common use)? I've also removed the mention of the 2004-10-29 spelling change: note "flavored" was untouched by that edit, and I don't think it's particularly relevant for deciding on whether to use that h or not. Some standardized rigour (talk) 08:09, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Block protocol. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Japan-related articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:President of Croatia

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:President of Croatia. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2011. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 00:16, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

You have been mentioned in a WP:AN/I discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Yog(h)urt. Thank you. Thryduulf (talk) 22:10, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Republican Party (United States) presidential debates, 2012

Hey, I just wanted to let you know I made a few changes over there, but I didn't notice your comment for your last change. So, some of my changes are probably wrong. I can't read the link you provided right now, but I read another news story saying Huntsman was going to be in the December 15 debate, which is also a Fox News debate, so I'm thinking he's invited to all of them. The link I put in my comment said that all the candidates had been invited to the December 3 debate, which I'm guessing means all the candidate except Gary Johnson, sadly. Anyway, point of all this is, I didn't mean to step on your toes, and feel free to change anything back however you want with no hard feelings. Cheers. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Re: Yogurt dispute

I really have no idea why this has gone on for eight years. Can you briefly explain it to me? Viriditas (talk) 00:10, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

On one side you have those with a personal preference for "Yogurt" who feel justified in having it moved back because that was the original title, and because there has never been consensus support for the "Yoghurt" title. On the other side you have those with a personal preference for "Yoghurt" who object to moving it back to the original title ("Yogurt") because then it will be at "Yogurt" instead of their preferred "Yoghurt". And each time someone proposes moving it back, enough of those who prefer "Yoghurt" show up to justify an admin finding "no consensus" in favor of the move. That's the short story. The full summary of the story is here: Talk:Yoghurt/yoghurtspellinghistory. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:19, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, but the sources that I've looked at make it pretty clear that yoghurt is archaic usage, and both the yogurt industry and linguists prefer yogurt. Shouldn't we be going from the sources? Viriditas (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be argued that it's not archaic in all variants of English. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:39, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, then we have a minority position. Why would we name an article based on a minority usage? Viriditas (talk) 01:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The main point of WP:ENGVAR is that if usage in WP went by majority usage, then all usage in WP would be U.S. usage, because the population in the U.S. is so high relative to other English variant users. Therefore, we go by the criteria at ENGVAR, which includes going back to the variant of the first non-stub version of the article when we can't agree on anything else. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, we are using the word "majority" to mean something different. I'm not using it to mean majority usage by speakers. I'm using it to mean majority usage by a wide criterion: industry, public, media, formal, casual, academic, etc. For me, gauging U.S. usage would only be one consideration of many. For example, what is the majority usage in the EU? I see that in Italy, Fage brands their product as yogurt, but in the UK, they sell it with the label yoghurt. Viriditas (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you know of any precedent for deciding on an article title spelling based on criteria like that? --Born2cycle (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

You mean based on all of the available evidence? Policies and guidelines are supposed to augment decision making, not replace it. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Do you know of any examples in which the decision of which spelling variant (between two fairly commonly used variants) to use was decided based on looking at "all of the available evidence"? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I'm very confused by your question. I make all of my decisions based on the evidence, and every good decision involves looking directly at this evidence. Wikipedia is not an echo chamber where we make decisions based solely on policies and guidelines. Those things exist to help lead us to the right decision. They never point to a single answer by themselves. The hard data and evidence is paramount, more specifically, what the sources say about a subject matters the most. In this instance, the wide variety of sources say that yoghurt is not the most common or preferred spelling. I am more interested in seeing a single source that says it is. Since we don't have any, I am genuinely curious why the article is not titled yogurt. I understand that you are using and relying on a guideline to shoehorn the outcome into a nice little hole, but I take a more fluid approach. I go where the evidence goes, wherever it might take me, and the evidence does not support yoghurt. I rely on policies and guidelines to make my point only when the evidence is weak or confusing. But at the end of the day, it is the sources that matter more. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

The decision about which language variant to use in an article (including the title) that is not about a region-specific topic is usually not decided by looking at any evidence. Most often the variant used is whatever the native variant is of whoever happens to create the article, and so it remains. Once the variant is so set, changing the variant is discouraged. No evidence of any kind is normally part of this.

This is why I'm asking if you know of any examples in the specific area of deciding which spelling variant to use, where that decision was made based on evidence. I don't know why this is difficult. You either know of such examples, or you don't. Off hand, I can't think of any. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can't speak to precedent, but all of my decisions are based on evidence, not on preconceived beliefs like policies or guidelines. Decision making involves a process of which policy and guidelines only direct one to an answer, but don't determine it. If you use a policy framework to filter your choices when confronted with evidence, then you are at risk of discarding accuracy in favor of procedure. Policy serves the evidence, not the other way around. If you are making decisions that aren't based on evidence, then you are making bad decisions. Choosing to follow an initial article creation guideline when dealing with variants is one thing, but it is a heuristic, nothing more. You're not supposed to follow it religiously, you're supposed to focus on getting the right answer, and that involves more than one approach. Taking a wide sample of the evidence is one step along this path. Viriditas (talk) 06:55, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

All this talk about policy and guidelines in this particular discussion is puzzling. I generally agree with you on all that, but I don't understand how it is relevant or at issue here. So, maybe I'm missing something, but all I can do is ignore it, at least for now.

Now, regarding evidence... evidence in the absence of a particular question to answer is useless. In criminal law, the relevant questions are, who is guilty? Or is this particular person guilty? Or, what was he killed with? Etc., etc. And we use evidence to answer those questions. Similarly, in WP, we need to know what questions we're trying to answer in order to know what kind of evidence to look at. Yes?

In this case the specific question is, shall the title be "Yogurt" or "Yoghurt"? Normally, the answer to such a question is based on the very trivial evidence of what the English variant of the article is. In this case the English variant is British English. But there are two issues with that. The first is that British English is unclear about whether it favors the h spelling or not. Secondly, the legitimacy of the British variant is at issue, as the original variant of the article was American English (the evidence for that is also trivial - just look at the original version of the article), and the title, then the variant, was changed, for no apparent reason, much less a good one.

Now you seem to be suggesting that we should be looking at evidence in sources to answer these questions. I'm just saying that for these particular questions it's rather unconventional to look to evidence in sources for the answers. However, you may be trying to answer some questions for which that does make sense. What are they? --Born2cycle (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

@ Viriditas, I'm glad to see more people interested in what is going on. I think the "Talk:Yoghurt#Arguments regarding article title" is the best summary of evidence from either "side". I have come to the conclusion that Yogurt makes more sense based on a preponderance of the evidence (I was the starter of the "Arguments in favor / against" table).

@ B2C, here are two more sources worth adding to the "move" side of things::

Online etymology dictionary (maybe to consolidate with the michael quinion entry under an 'etymology' heading?):

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=yogurt&searchmode=none << shows etymology of yogurt

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?allowed_in_frame=0&search=yoghurt&searchmode=none << note that "yoghurt" is not found.

Google Ngram Viewer. So cool, I've never seen this before:

http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=yoghurt%2Cyogurt%2CYoghurt%2CYogurt&year_start=1940&year_end=2009&corpus=0&smoothing=3 <<< shows vastly increasing prevalence of "yogurt" in books.

Also, Viriditas seems level headed, if you want to be a douche towards someone, do it to someone more deserving like ROUX.

-Kai445 (talk) 05:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Heh, thanks, but Roux is pretty cool, too, and I've definitely had my disagreements with him. We all have bad days, I guess. B2C has been just fine, so no complaints here. :) Viriditas (talk) 06:45, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Like --Born2cycle (talk) 07:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Tool apprenticeship. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Citing sources

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Citing sources. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Help

I understand that there is a vote on the yogurt article to change the title. Ive followed to argument closly and would love to support the change but ive never supported a change before so i dont really know how. If you could explain to me how, that would be great. By the way, im a fan of your efforts hahaha. Pete5680 (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Copy (Control-C) the following text:
* '''Support'''. --~~~~
Click on this link.
Go to the bottom of the section.
Paste (Control-V) in the above text.
Add your reasons for supporting after the period after "Support".
Save your edit.

--Born2cycle (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

yogurt

B2C often we are on the same side in a RM debate, but sometimes we disagree. I don't think I have ever accused you of bad faith and I am disappointed to see you making such innuendos against me. To the best of my knowledge you have no reason to do so.

You seem to have forgotten that yoghurt had spilled over into an ANI ("What's yoghurt?"), where it had been mooted that at least one person should be topic banned "Would a topic ban from yoghurt and/or page moves/article titles be of value here? Note this is a genuine question, I don't know the answer." I came to talk:yoghurt for the first time in years because of that ANI. As for the block talk:yoghurt page, I made it three hours long, so that an agreement at ANI could be reached on whether my initial closure was appropriate. As I said on talk:yoghurt the usual way of dealing with an uninvolved administrators close an RM prematurely, that someone disagrees with is to take it to an ANI, not for parties to the RM to revert an univolved administrators close. If editors involved in this discussion wished to overturn my decision that would have been the appropriate way to do it. Although two editors had gone to ANI, there was, at that time no clear consensus to overturn my close. A three hour hiatus to this RM, while it was decided if my closure was in order, seemed to me the simplest way to solve an issue. The point about my initial comment is that I can prefer something without agreeing that it is the correct solution for Wikipedia. For example I prefer the word petrol to gasoline, but if you look back in the talk archive of that page you will find I opposed the move to petrol. In your last retort you are sill implying my motives were base, I would appreciate it if you would reconsider whether such an implication is warranted. -- PBS (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

PBS, I hear you, and I'm really sad to see this, and I've said everything I have with extra consideration given due to our history, but this is really that bad. I have never ever seen anyone prematurely close an RM discussion several days and dozens of !votes into it. You took action way too quickly. You either didn't realize, or didn't care, that the RM had been started by a seasoned but previously uninvolved editor, and many other seasoned and previously uninvolved editors had contributed. To silence them like that is beyond the pale. To make it worse, this is what you said in the edit summary, " If anyone reverts this revert, unless there is agreement at ANI to do so, I will take further administrative action.)". As others have asked, just who do you think you are? What you are saying here is that, while allowing for the possibility that you might be wrong, and if that's agreed to in an AN/I discuss which could take days if not weeks, everyone must presume that you're right to close. But, that said, it could have been forgiven and soon forgotten if it had ended when someone reverted you close. Let's just say you certainly had enough in the tank with me for that outcome if it had gone that way. But that's not what happened, of course. After your close was reverted, with the quite appropriate edit summary of "outrageous", by the way, you went and reverted that revert, starting an edit war. Do you really need to be reminded of BRD? What makes you think it shouldn't apply here? In principle, if not in letter. I've seen other RM closes reverted, but never a revert reversed, at least not by the same closer. The community simply does not support unilateral decisions and actions like this. This is the fundamental point you really seem to not appreciate. This is why I'm calling for you to turn in your admin privileges. I wasn't kidding when I said I've never seen an admin abuse his privileges like you did today. The community should not tolerate this, because it would encourage other admins to try to do the same thing.

Look, I get what happened. You read the earlier AN/I, came to the talk page, and decided, because it was so soon since the last RM, that closing this now was not an unreasonable thing to do, especially considering the unwritten 6-month rule, etc. Your edit summary indicated you realized you were pushing the envelope, and I'm sure you did not realize how way, way, way over the line you were. So you were prepared for an AN/I review, discussion and possible reversal, but you were not prepared for a revert of your close without discussion. That threw you. And here, instead of instinctively following BRD, you instead escalated, invoking your admin privs to lock the talk page... lock the talk page! Unthinkable! 3 minutes, 3 hours, whatever. To stifle ongoing discussion is anathema to the way WP operates. It has to be. Discussion is all we've got. I understand you thought it would be fine because discussion could continue at AN/I which is where you thought it should occur, but what makes you think you're the arbiter of any of that? It's the arrogance that's the problem here. Locking a page to stop vandals or an edit war that you're not involved in is one thing, but to use it as weapon to stop normal and relatively reasonable discourse in a conflict in which you're involved? That's the epitome of abuse of power. The only reason your continued lack of appreciation for how out of line you were (as revealed above) is not making me even more convinced that you should not be an admin is because I was already 100% convinced, and so could not be any more convinced. --Born2cycle (talk) 08:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Without addressing anything you say here regarding PBS' actions, I want to note that his point remains—you seem to assume everyone on that page really cares about the spelling of Yogurt, despite their insistence to the contrary. [20] is another example of you seeming to accuse someone of ulterior motives. The discussion on that page is quite nasty, and this isn't helping. Notice how GTBs response to you was to deny being a partisan, rather than to address the point you were really trying to make about blocks? See how this is distracting? I beg you to focus on the arguments being made and stop attacking people. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 21:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Like Good advice. Excellent point. You're absolutely right. Thank you, thank you, thank you. This is the kind of constructive criticism that improves Wikipedia. If you see me blowing it again, please do not hesitate to alert me. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nationality

I think that it would suit everyone best if you didn't even mention nationality in any capacity if it can be helped. I think it's becoming a distraction, and just allowing editors in favor of keeping the article title have something to carry on about. I'm not disputing that there may be nationalism at play, and I'm not assuming you are acting in bad faith, I'm just saying that if we could drop it, it would probably be best for everyone involved. Maybe even edit or retract your previous statements, just so that they don't have a "bad guy" to beat up any longer. -Kai445 (talk) 19:13, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I've tried to explain it, but they still twist it into being an attack. I suppose it's not important enough to continue. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 19:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Ever hear the expression...

Quit while you're ahead? Lol. I don't think the "we are correcting these wrongs that have wronged us so wrongly!" type argument you just started is going to help anything. -Kai445 (talk) 02:52, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Seconded Hot Stop talk-contribs 03:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

For some reason I am reminded about the joke of a head that goes to the pub and ends up getting run over by a bus after beer somehow made them grow a body. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I third the motion. The RM appears destined to be affirmed. I suggest a fine mixed drink. My favorite is Kern’s ‘Guava’ Fruit Nectar, a shot of vodka, and a good heaping spoonful of Coco López Cream of Coconut. Greg L (talk) 06:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think it's hurting anything. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Article titles

Responding to RFCs

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Article titles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2011 (UTC)