|
If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.
What this noticeboard is:
- It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.
What this noticeboard is not:
- It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
- It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
- It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
- It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.
Things to remember:
- Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
- Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
- Sign and date your posts with four tildes "
~~~~".
- If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.
|
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 17:46, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
You've been deleting the list of alumni at the following page for not having the sources for each of those:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_St._Stephen's_College,_Delhi
Having searched on Wikipedia, there are numerous List of Alumni pages that do not have sources for the various people included. It is not possible to the get sources for each and every member mentioned in such lists. And since so many other such pages exist, the above mentioned page should also be restored with the original list!
Examples of other such pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Kellogg_School_of_Management_alumni
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_alumni_of_Trinity_College,_Cambridge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.11.30 (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
- I will continue to do so. Other pages set no precedent on Wikipedia. If you want to add alumni please follow the very simple policies. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
This amounts to targetting a particular page on Wikipedia. If similar pages can exist without sources for each and every name mentioned therein, so should this. Shouldn't the very simple policies apply to all pages? 27.111.213.117 (talk) 07:46, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is very simple. If the alumnus is truly an alumnus of the institution then they require a citation in a reliable source that they are an alumnus. Many of the alumni are alive, and this is a Biography of Living Persons issue. If you want to change policies, change them by reaching consensus in the appropriate place, whcih is not my talk page. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
JetBlast (talk) 00:07, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the discussion here, I'm not going to report anywhere else. If it is good for others, it is for me too. I have better things to do than lose time with this guy. --Eleassar my talk 12:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't disagree. I was simply pointing out that the wrong forum choice does people no favours. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
I know; thank you. It's just that I don't have time and the nerves for such a discussion right now. --Eleassar my talk 13:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi. I see User:Lgcsmasamiya is still making mistakes in page curation. I think they simply don't possess the competence to do it properly and should stop, but I'm reluctant to just block again unless it's really necessary. As you have tried to talk to them before, I wonder if you'd mind having a look and trying again to get their attention and get some sort of dialog going? (Maybe a good cop/bad cop approach might help ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:25, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have a go. Whats the worst that can happen :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
 Done, worded kindly and firmly, and in a spirit of offering assistance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:04, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nice, thanks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 20:37, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
Still Confused
Thanks for the response, Tim. Yes, I dove in. Yes, I appreciate the fact that Wiki is so well vetted. I may not be a great programmer but I mistakenly believed the the posting process was a little more . . . intuitive? For example, I don't ever remember "sending any message to you. Is "Saving" my comment the same as sending it? I guess once i get more involved, it will become second nature. But for now, it's just neophyte frustration. Pull the page or let me know what i need to have it pulled. I will have to do more homework before a second attempt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avewiki (talk • contribs)
Hey, Tim, can I suggest that you back off from Technical 13 a bit? To be honest, I'm a little worried about your objectivity. Not that it's unreasonable that you'd be that way, but I don't think it's going to help either of you. The userbox was kinda childish, and I don't see any way that it could be useful to other editors, but I also don't think it's a provocation or anything to really require discussion. T13 has plenty of eyes on him, I don't think there's any cause to worry. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 22:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Please have no concerns about my objectivity. If you recall, I recommended him for unblocking despite his prior contact with me bing to poke me sharply with a stick. I have had my last interaction with him now for a good long time, unless, of course, he comes and asks me for help. You will find I am very even handed. I give help quite happily when asked even if prior behaviour would appear not to warrant it. He will, I hope, find his way. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:27, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- Since this section is about me, I might as well put my comment here. Although other administrators have agreed that your signature is WP:SIG#confusing, much earlier today I requested my draft to complain about it to the RFC/U be speedily deleted using twinkle. I just thought you should know. Technical 13 (talk) 22:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
- I have no idea, I am afraid, what you are talking about, but I think you are offering some sort of olive branch. It seems that you created some sort of document about my signature that you then asked to be deleted? Never mind. I don't imagine I need to know the details. I accept the presumed olive branch from you. I am perfectly happy to offer you what I believe to be good advice, and to help you all I can, if you wish that to happen. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wondering if you've ever thought of running for admin? You've got plenty of experience and you're good with people, and I expect you'll have built up quite a bit of respect by now. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's kind of you to suggest it, flattering, too. I won't deny that I have considered it, but I have always concluded that I can be somewhat more incisive without the mop and bucket. Having the powers may tempt me into poor decisions. I think I am better outside the broom closet, thinking that the tools would be useful than I would be with the tools and wondering if I was about to make a poor decision.
- As an ordinary editor I have, in a way, more power to do good than I would as an admin. I know that is a paradox. Instead of being the one to act I can ask an uninvolved admin to look at my thoughts, to consider my judgment and to act if appropriate. And I can, if necessary, teeter onto the dark side of the line, knowing that I will receive a simple slap rather than a whole circus of inquisition.
- Does that make sense? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- It makes a lot of sense, yes. In fact, it's very similar to my reasons for resisting attempts to get me to run for so long. But if your willpower should ever weaken, I'd be happy to offer a nomination. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:18, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Almost every admin seems to spend time administering rather than creating and editing. It would become a duty, not a pleasure. If you look at my contributions record you'll see that I enjoy editing and creating articles. Some days I gravitate to the less arduous tasks of checking instead of creating. I've actually surprised my self the other day by looking at the number of new articles I've started. I don't want it to move form pastime to work.
- So I think it unlikely that I will reconsider, but I thank you for the pre-nomination. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- I know the feeling - I briefly handed in my mop recently to try to spend more time on content, but the admin areas I'd been working in were short-handed and needed moppers, so I got dragged back in. There's some irony here too, as I think experienced content-creators are the ones who generally make the best admins - but being an admin does indeed take you away from content work. Anyway, please always feel free to give me a shout whenever you need a bad cop ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:34, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Stalking your talk page, I saw. I understand about content creators making good admins, too. I am often perplexed about some admins who enjoy power instead of realising that they are the community's servants. I must also admit that I find the alleged wisdom of crowds to be sorely lacking! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:40, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one." -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- Beware the power of stupid people in large groups :) Wikipedia is a social experiment which happens to produce some sort of encyclopaedia. It tends toward mediocrity often, except in areas where no opinions are possible, of course. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Is there an area where no opinion is possible? I think not! <g> Interesting thread here: I sort of agree with both of you. I rather think that I am heading towards one of my "is it even worth the effort" phases but it is good to read decent people saying decent things that essentially relate to how it is thus. - Sitush (talk) 00:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
- You caught me! I should have said 'where conflicting opinions are not possible', and that would still have been able to be proven to be incorrect. It is, of course, not worth the effort, but that is because it's a hobby. This is not the real world. If all the good folk gave up now, this instant, no-one would die because of it. The world would not stop turning. The oceans would not decide that this gravity lark is silly, and fall off. Most of us who edit this theme park are candidates for the next B Ark. We're descended from the folk who were kindly allowed to leave first in the first B Ark, after all. I Mst now go and sanitise a telephone :). Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim. Interesting how this comes back to you... Let me try to explain this from the start...
- While I was helping out new user on the WP:TH, WP:COI and it's associated templates came up.
- At the end of the discussion, I started working on a new companion template for {{COI}} and {{Connected contributor}}.
- Once I completed the template User:Technical_13/Templates/Contributor_connected, I set up a testcases page.
- Then, I checked out the list of fairly recent editors on the history of {{Connected contributor}} and posted a discussion to their talk pages. Here are some of the conversations:
- The end of the last discussion I linked, I say, "I was thinking, that since there are already two templates, one for the article itself and one for it's talk page, and since this would possibly be a third, maybe a gadget could be created to allow people to click a couple of times and get all of them posted to the correct pages automatically and save time and confusion?"
- We agree it is a good idea, and Ukexpat suggests getting it added to WP:TWINKLE. He mentions Wikipedia_talk:Twinkle#Bugs_and_feature_requests.
- While reading through there a little bit, I find your post, "I see nothing to do with COI here and I believe it ought to be present (though I appreciate you might be looking at that later in a separate list). I was going to suggest shortly that when a COI warning is applied to a user that {{Connected contributor}} might be applied (optionally, naturally) to relevant articles. ... Fiddle Faddle (talk) 6:48 am, 14 March 2013, Thursday (24 days ago) (UTC−4)"
Interesting story, don't you think? Would you like to work with Ukexpat and I to make a formal proposal to get these templates added to Twinkle? Thank you for your time. Technical 13 (talk) 01:07, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Interesting idea. I have not looked at your template idea in huge detail. In essence it seems to me that users are unlikely to declare an interest themselves, but I see no harm in their being given the opportunity. The issue I see is that they might feel that declaring an interest gives them carte blanche to run riot in what they perceive to be 'their' articles. That aspect of human nature needs to be considered before moving too far ahead. But the idea has my cautious support with that caveat in mind.
- You are probably aware that templates can sense the type of page they are on if the logic is entered in the rather arcane templating language? I'm sure you are. I think that creation of your new template is not required. Rather, a modification of the existing template to sense whether it is on an article talk page or a user talk page is required. So I think you have two discussions to hold.
- The talk page of Connected Contributor: "May I make this modification?"
- The talk page of Twinkle: "Shall we include this template within Twinkle?" followed by the logic of how you would see it deployed
- I'm happy to participate in both discussions, each of which should probably be free standing. I don't think a huge proposal is required. One simply asks for things on the Twinkle talk page and folk decide. Same on template talk pages. With regard to the template, though, I think it would be wise to draw wide attention to the concept and the discussion. Yu need to give full opportunity for people to dislike the idea as well as to like it. Asking for people from, say, a relevant Village Pump forum to come and give their views for and against the template itself would be wise, along the lines of "There is a discussion about the wider usage of {{Connected contributor}} taking place at its talk page. Your views there are important. Please come and join the discussion to build a consensus for or against." Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:47, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- Another point to consider is that template use on one's talk page and elsewhere is not restricted to the user whose talk page it is. Anyone may deploy any template anywhere, even in invalid places. There comes a point when people apply templates out of spite. Consider whether your proposal might attract that sort of behaviour. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- There is one strong thought, though. This is busywork. What Wikipedia needs most is editors of articles. Even if it's grammar and spelling, that;s good. Find citations for articles where citations are absent. Improve bare links with full citations. Do things to create an encyclopaedia, not to create the environment of the encyclopaedia. We need articles, not ancillary stuff. Go and find a random article and run Reflinks over it, look in a category for a stub you can expand. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:24, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you are interested in following up on this idea, check out "Tag" suggestions on Twinkles page. Technical 13 (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. I will. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
See this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fladrif&diff=549862285&oldid=549861016
I hope he gets the message anyway.--Penbat (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- I understand where you are coming from. This editor is new to me. I choose to take them at face value at the time we met, on the template's talk page. Their actions from that point on are important to me. I know your experience is different. I'm grateful for knowing more about it, but I choose not to let that colour my dealings with them. With regard to the template they may form a consensus or they may not. Either of those outcomes is fine by me, as I am sure you know from our many conversations. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
That link is authentic and proof the owner of the books. The Resistance Manifesto and Dating Strategies both of the books owners are Mark Shouldice. You should stop being disrespectful and abuse your power at wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarkShouldice (talk • contribs) 21:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- The link has all the appearances of being a spoof. Fictitious Business Names. Not a hope. As for power, what power? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
does it feel good now?
Do you even know Mark Dice?
Go do some research. I don't want to waste anymore time with a hopeless troll. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Markshouldice (talk • contribs) 21:41, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good advice, but he heard it too late. He's been indeffed as a vandalism only account, and is a probable sockpuppet anyway. The probable puppetmaster has been reported and is likely to be indeffed if true. It's the way it usually goes when invective starts to fly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
I noticed you removed links from this article on the grounds that the links already appeared in the template. I don't know what policy you're basing that action on; just because something is linked in a template at the bottom of the page doesn't mean it can't be in the main article. Links should be provided on first mention, and most people are going to read the article before scrolling down and looking at the box at the bottom of the page. Wikipedia is about articles first and templates second. There is the added convenience that when reading the article that mentions another incident you're not familiar with, you can click on it right away and get context. Ribbet32 (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not particularly concerned either way on this one. If you feel the text should be linked please feel free. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Justlettersandnumbers. Thank you. —Technical 13 (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Figured you should be aware of it in case I need you as a witness. :) Technical 13 (talk) 22:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you. You need to be aware of WP:BOOMERANG for such postings on big fora. Editors new in their career often mistake Wikipedia for a place of justice and fair play. It really is not. It is a place where the Wisdom of Crowds also creates what it creates in real life - Lynch Law. If one does one's best to keep personal disputes away from large fora, and handles them within one's talk page one usually achieves a better overall result.
- One thing to be careful of is appearing to be overly sensitive to the criticism of others. Their words are truly unimportant. As I've said before, the only thing to take personally is praise. If I am any example at all, I do my best, though sometimes fail, to keep a cool head and an even tone, especially when deeply frustrated. I will fire warning shots, but I tend to fire them with a rifle, not a cannon. I try very hard never to appear to have taken anything personally, though my skin is as thin as the next man's.
- Wikipedia is an excellent training ground for life in an office. It has internal politics a-plenty. The only difference is that here we can be blocked indefinitely. In an office we can lose our jobs. I know you listen to my advice, and I accept that you do not take it all. Why should you? I advise you, though, to be abstemious in your use of large fora to complain about the behaviour of other editors except in grave circumstances. IT has a nasty habit of biting one in the rump.
- If asked to state what took place from my perspective I will do so happily and even handedly, but, form the first response there, I suspect it is going nowhere. If you accept my advice you will allow it to wither on the vine. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
- Just stalking. The above is one of the most sane and practically useful comments Ive seen on WP. The secret of longevity for all WP editors. I would like to put this on my talkpage as a part of a "Wise and useful WP comments" list im pondering on having (when I can figure the technicalities). I would ask your permission to use it in the future. Irondome (talk) 19:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Be my guest. I might add to it 'Never, ever, apply to be an admin'! Always nice to meet a new stalker. :) What brought you here in the frst place?
- Been on about 11 months, and a serial page watcher :) about 300 now. Also a couple dozen eds who impressed me in various ways or ive interacted with, almost exclusively positively. I think you may have given me a useful tip, way back. Cant really remember though :/ Have a good WP day my friend! Irondome (talk) 20:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I hope, if it was a tip, that it was useful. I tend to be quietly determined over things, ask other editors for help in a careful way, and plough an eclectic furrow. I've been here rather too long, but I find it an amusing social experiment that happens to create a work that is useful to some. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- At least as I am wasting time on the P.C instead of dealing with pressing and depressing issues in "real life", I can comfort myself with the specious belief that I am doing something useful, even if only 4 people on the planet find one of my obscure edits useful. It does really remind me of a bizarrely run campus. The politics of subject-hierarchy on WP are very similar to what I remember from my Uni days :/ Cheers! Irondome (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I find that editing this schoolyard allows me to tolerate the poor TV that runs at present. Now you mention a bizarre campus I am reminded of a TV comedy some years ago. I think it was "A most peculiar practice" which was not about a university. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:32, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I remember that! I recall it was about a group of G.Ps with rather questionable skills. To me the great joy of WP is the wonderful uncertainty of just what you are going to bump into next. A decent, articulate editor with a good grasp of subject and civility? An 11 year old from Idaho? A editor who obviously has a raging personality disorder? All human life is here. It beats TV hollow, especially in it present crap state. Irondome (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- The present crap state of TV or WP? - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 14 April 2013 (UTC) (a regular at the drama boards, alas).
- Put me down as an 11 year old from Idaho! Though the song http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpCr3oJDFbM appeals, but I find the pictures do not! I suspect it is the parlous state of TV and WP, by the way. Shall we have a stalking party? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- There are moments at the board which remind me of "Shes a witch!" from THe Holy Grail. There also appears to be a sub species of Ed. who seemingly permanently hang around the boards, ready at the drop of a citation to join one of those peasant mobs with burning torches and pitchforks so beloved of early 30s Frankenstein films. I love to hang around the boards, I just get sucked in dammit. Irondome (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- I attract those, both sorts :) I'd love to have been a fly on the wall when this madhouse was proposed to hear the real reason behind it. Or is that being a proponent of conspiracy theories? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- It is an attempt to create an intellectual and spiritual singularity after which the pantheon of Egyptian Gods will rule a paradise on Earth. I blame Gene Roddenbury. Irondome (talk) 21:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not he. The Cat from Red Dwarf. He will rule us all Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I am requesting your opinions at Talk:Thomas Savage (died 1611)#Move and add to Thomas Savage as a third party to a discussion which I feel is nearing an impasse. I feel confident that if you chose to participate, your comments ideas and suggestions will be neutral and non-biased in favor or against either of the currently involved participants. If you do not wish to participate, I understand and respect your wishes. Thank you. Technical 13 (talk) 19:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- Done Thank you. This is an interesting discussion and I have chosen to comment. It seems that it is not entirely straightforward in that a member of the WCoG may not necessarily be a G. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:13, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Timtrent. I am not involved in the recent discussion over at Template talk:Bullying#This reversion, but since you and another user has possibly reached an impasse and suggested we have more eyes on that particular discussion, should we ask for a WP:3O, an WP:RFC or ask on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure that we have reached an impasse. The other editor appears to have stopped commenting, unless I have missed a comment from them. If you feel that more eyes are needed please do invite them. I suspect an RFC will just end up as a long discussion of no fixed conclusion, something that seems to happen of late. Your own thoughts are welcome. I have strong feelings about the template but can, as you have seen, be persuaded when things are not quite right. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't promise to agree with your views. I haven't looked yet, and am replying on purpose before I look. I can say that those I agree with I will support, those I disagree with I will argue against, and that I am sure consensus will prevail, whatever it creates in the end. It is as much your business as anyone else's. One way that new eyes come to places is following threads on other people's talk pages. That is a good thing. It avoids cliques. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
There is no rush. Get back to the discussion when you can. Fladrif (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions, only a nominator can withdraw and close an RM discussion:
- If the nominator wishes to withdraw a proposal about which no one has yet commented, or which is unanimously opposed. In this case, the nominator may close the discussion as "withdrawn".
At Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans, when George Ho closed the discussion as "withdrawn"[1], that was an invalid and highly premature close, as he was not the nominator. So I reverted that close accordingly[2], with this comment. You then reverted my revert[3], apparently under the mistaken assumption that the original close by George Ho was legitimate.
Or am I missing something? --B2C 21:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The nominator, T13 withdrew, twice. He is inexperienced and probably incapable of making a closure himself at this stage of his expertise on Wikipedia. As I recall, 100% of the comments except the nominator were to oppose. In my opinion it was thus closed correctly. If you have a technical issue with the closure, please take it to a forum about closure of requested moves to discuss the technical aspects. What you ought not to do is to cry foul and revert a closure. I stand by my reversion to the closed state unless the original closure is overturned in a correct forum, in which case I will give way with good grace. As a side issue I find it tasteless to use the talk pages of suicides to battle over wikipolitics. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Issue nullified. Both of you drop the stick and see Talk:Suicide of Kelly Yeomans if clarification is needed. Also, I support both of you to continue discussing it on WP:VPP. Technical 13 (talk) 21:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- As a side note, I do not appreciate my "friends" calling me "inexperienced and probably incapable of making a closure himself." I wish you to retract that comment. The reason I had not formally withdrawn from the proposal at that time was due to RL time restrictions going through this bloody "divorce" for lack of a simpler more accurate term. I think it was inappropriate for George to close it for me as well, and if there was any concern of my inability to add a little simple wikicode to a page, then in the discussion someone simply should have said, "T13, please go to Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Closing_instructions and properly withdraw this request per the instructions there. Thank you." Technical 13 (talk) 21:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) and (edit conflict) I rather think that technically the issue has been exacerbated now, not nullified. This is a place of stultifying procedures. Out of politeness I suggest one or the other or both of you let George Ho know what has taken place. I find your exhortation to drop some sort of a stick more than a little patronising.
- I return again and again and again to my strong advice to you: edit articles and leave policy and procedure alone. You do not seem to be here to build an encyclopaedia. Instead you seem to enjoy combat, bickering, setting cats among pigeons and other entirely unproductive activities.
- I still believe that your inexperience is proven by almost all of your actions on WIkipedia. You may be mediawiki literate, but you are not Wikipedia literate yet. Articles are what we are here for, not frilly fancy time wasting activities. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- The problem was that the nominator hadn't closed the discussion as withdrawn, someone else did. It is now officially withdrawn by the nominator. As long as you disagreed upon the legitimacy of the closure, there was a problem. Now, there can be no disagreement upon the legitimacy of the withdrawal because it is how policy dictates it should be. As far as the other goes, your comment was read by me as I'm not experienced enough to know how to wrap a section in a div and mark it as closed. That is a flat out insult as far as I am concerned saying that Technical_13 isn't technical enough to know how. That being said, I have an assignment due in the next 5 hours and I need to work on that. I'll explain what transpired to George, but I expect that to be the last of my discussion on this topic until at LEAST Monday morning. As far as article space goes, see my comment to Sladen on my talk page, thank you. Go have some fun and edit some articles, I need to get back to my studies. Technical 13 (talk) 21:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- As I have said, you have skill with Mediawiki. You are inexperienced with Wikipedia. I am not insulting you at all, and I wish you would understand that. You have been here a short time. You have been in fight after fight. Many people have given you firm advice, and you have chosen, instead, to find newer battlegrounds. I believe you are well intentioned. Your interactions when not combative show that. So please, ensure that you avoid combat. I cannot help interacting with you 'against you' in areas where our opinions differ. An example is the suicide pages. I have tried very hard to interact with you everywhere openly, transparently, and well. I believe I have done so almost all the time. If you recall, our first interaction was your poking me violently with a stick. Most people would have given up on you after that. You achieved an editing block for yourself in record time. I stood up for you suggesting that you be unblocked, if you recall. I'm not suggesting that you owe me anything, but I wish you would at least listen to and hear what people say to you. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:07, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
- Hi folks, I hope you don't mind a comment from me here. If the nominator of Requested Move makes a note that they withdraw or are happy to go with an obvious snow result, it but does not close it in the proper formal manner, that's sufficient to satisfy our policies and it's fine for another editor to formally close it. At least, I can't see any other sensible interpretation of our policy - we're not blind letter-of-the-law followers here, and our overriding aim in every case is to do what is right and what is intended. Also, Technical 13, you need to tone down your Battlefield rhetoric - someone suggesting that, as a relative newcomer, you might not yet have the experience to know how to properly close a Request Move is absolutely *not* an insult. You have butted up against a number of people in your short time here so far, including some very calm and helpful people like Timtrent, for a number of pointless reasons. And if you want your time here to be long and fruitful, you're going to have to wind it back a bit and start Assuming Good Faith a bit more. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:51, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't mind Boing... Since the closing of that request, I've found WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS that is exactly what I was proposing in the first place. That being said, WP:SNOWBALL wouldn't have actually applied. I agree with Born2cycle that it was improperly closed after reading that policy he linked at the top of this section. That may confirm that I'm not experienced enough with WP policy to know those things ahead of time, and I concede that now if it wasn't clear I'm not offended by being called inexperienced. What I found offensive was being called incapable. To say that someone as experienced as me in editing a MediaWiki wiki that has reported bugs on Bugzilla, modified extensions to work correctly on my home wiki, and written numerous userscripts and templates is incapable of wrapping a discussion in a simple div with the closing template is ludicrous. Anyways, this discussion is pointless and I do not wish to discuss it anymore. Technical 13 (talk) 11:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I don't see it at all as a comment on your technical abilities - just on your possible level of understanding of proper Wikipedia procedures. You really need to wind in your ego here and, as I say, Assume Good Faith (I know I already linked to that, but you really do need to read it and follow it). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
- I can confirm that I am absolutely not calling skill into question. Expertise and experience are two very different things. Expertise you have, experience in Wikipedia you can not have yet, despite being a guru at other sites where mediawiki software is deployed. I have some skill in Mediawiki, but I am by no means an expert. While one can argue that experience can also be a hindrance, experience of policies, processes and procedures in a venue as challenging as Wikipedia is an essential if one is to walk the fine line between going nuts and remaining whatever sane happens to be. I can't remember using the word 'incapable, but (and I am sure you will point it out to me) if I did I believe and hope it was in the context of "By his being inexperienced he is incapable." Planting a few lines of MW code in places is not a hard task. Getting the context right, following existing practices, that is where experience is vital. I;ve been here a while. I have never closed a discussion. I have determined that my experience here leads me to be better in other directions. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I am wondering on what basis Broken Rites Black Collar Crime is an unreliable source? Broken Rites has been researching and reporting abuse, and supporting victims, for 20 years. The Black Collar Crime citation is used elsewhere in wikipedia. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 01:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- If you disagree, and it is a reliable source, please feel free to edit my note. I am not disparaging the organisation itelf, but it appears to me to fail WP:RS. Everything about it 'feels' as if it is a collection pulled together by a campaigner, not pulled together in an RS manner. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 06:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
- No you are correct, it does fail WP:RS. I opened discussion on the article's talk page and had this explained to me. thanks for replying. Flatoitlikealizarddrinking (talk) 09:51, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim. I appreciate your help. I am not a pro at Wikipedia etiquette. I am aware that deletes are stored. I am not sure what I did to upset you. Your resources have given my a lot of knowledge regarding how to post on Wikipedia. Thanks again. Tallfromstpaul (talk) 15:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi Tim, I was hoping that you could officially change your vote. It appears that you are still in support of deleting the article. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding.Tallfromstpaul (talk) 17:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I raised this at WP:BLPN#Photos of private people doing embarrassing things. Please participate in that discussion. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I have made a tentative start on merging Llewellin Setter into English Setter - I have serious doubts as to whether I'm doing it correctly but it's too late to back track now! I'm really turning to you for some advice on the best way to continue, please, if you don't mind? I copied the Llewllin article over and am now slowly trying to sort everything out by removing duplicated information and finding as many references as I can as I go along (proving to be time consuming as I spend far too much time reading the books!). To be honest, I'm finding almost everything previously included in 'Llewellin' is already in the English setter article just phrased slightly differently.
There are also a few lines at the end of the first paragraph in the History section about the FDSB, the IPDBA registry and "pure bred Llewllins" which are problematic as all the refs I'm finding show there cannot be "purebred" Llewellins. I found another interesting old book 'The Sporting Dog', which is available online [4] which also discusses Llewellins. I'd be grateful for your thoughts if you get the chance to have a look. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:32, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
PS: I have also included a note in the articles for Count Noble and Jim the Wonder Dog to clarify about Llewellin/English setter, which hopefully may allay the concerns raised by cRreep about the merge. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:57, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for your kind comments! I'm still playing around with the article as there is a lot more work to be done on it to bring it to a more acceptable level but that will be a slow process and will be undertaken over a much longer time frame. If we're having the section on Llewellin lines, I think at some point I'll try to expand some detail about the Laverack line as well. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:38, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think that makes perfect sense. I wanted to post a comment there to try to ensure that no-one disagrees retrospectively.No article will ever be perfect, obvious;y :) Fiddle Faddle (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
|
