![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[Two archives are for discussion conducted at Talk:Pope Stephen III but broader in scope than that suggests:]
Prior to archiving (see that section, directly above), Jerzy closed a msg by saying:
And Švitrigaila responded:
_ _ I said before, that i hoped to do some refactoring before our continuing. Perhaps you missed that, or misunderstood. Or, if i exhausted your patience, i understand and sympathize. If you need to continue again before i can refactor, i understand and sympathize.
_ _IMO
Wikipedia:refactoring would help us be clear, partly by keeping topics together. For instance, you mentioned popes with 3 other names, and you keep referring to Leningrad. I have thots about those, but it would be better for me to respond at
Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Other Cases of Irregular Naming) than at this point on this page.
_ _ When i continue, i will find whatever the place was, where i said either "challenging your decision" or "challenging my decision". Then i will try to clarify.
_ _ What i fail to understand is your mentioning my "last intervention". These
definitions may help you with that word in the future. Does my "last intervention" consist of one paragraph, and end "...until i can carry that out"? Does it begin with "Thank you, i think..."?
_ _ But i have to go now.
--
Jerzy•
t 16:03 &
20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a solution on
Areas of Consensus. (Maybe I should have posted it here insteed?) Do you agree with it?
Švitrigaila
13:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a two points myself on the "... Consensus" sub-page. I think you agree with me on this both of these. If you disagree, the simplest thing is for you to move it one or both to the "Potential Solutions" sub-page.
--
Jerzy•
t 03:00 &
03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I offer to address this contentious issue. I'm glad to see two editors trying hard to work things out with each other but I can also see the effort stalling. I don't think anyone is at fault.
Here are my qualifications as a neutral party:
My interests, insofar as they apply here, are limited to these goals:
Here is my offer:
To engage my services, the contesting parties must agree to abide by my final implementation. They must promise not to revert it, move affected pages, tamper with templates I have created to support the solution, or take the matter to another forum. They must promise not to lobby other editors during the period of exposure, nor after. Each agrees that any breach of these terms forfeits all merit in his cause.
Nothing in these terms will be taken to limit the freedom of other editors to act as they see fit within project policy.
Why do I require these conditions? For the same reasons that I offer myself to the task. I am quite serious about a definitive solution; yet I am completely neutral on the issue, because I am quite uninvolved. I will need to invest considerable time and energy to be sure I understand the issues fully; and to develop a satisfactory solution. I'm well aware that a minute later another editor may undo all my work. Will you two gentlemen agree not to throw stones at it? John Reid 10:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I read quite a bit of incivility in this discussion on all sides. I think you need help. You understand that the flip side of my entirely neutral position now is that I will have to put in a great deal of work in order to properly appreciate the situation. My solution will be binding upon no editor other than you two and only if you so accept. If you'd rather wrangle together, that's okay too. Let me know on my talk if you change your mind; I'm unwatching this page. John Reid 23:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite glad that you've brought to our attention the fact that our Pope Stephen suite showed complete ignorance of the existence of a second numbering scheme. As i've said, that requires corrective action.
I've devoted considerable effort to this area in which i have no particular interest. As i noted in the previous section, i was drawn into it in response to the very bad idea that using e.g. Pope Stephen II as a pipe to an article titled Pope Stephen III is an acceptable way to treat users even as an interim measure. I've found that your weak facility with the English language (which may explain your tin ear for en: WP practices) makes you the wrong messenger for your ideas about how to correct the articles, entirely independent of whatever merits those ideas have.
I doubt those ideas have any merit, but that is irrelevant. What i am saying is that if you want to have your arguments' influence go further, you need to find some kind of help in stating yourself more clearly in English, or understanding the English counteraguments well enough to respond to them, or perhaps both. Otherwise we must wait for someone else to independently discover the same ideas and formulate their own arguments for them. The good news in that is that WP flourishes on giving tens of thousands of editors the opportunity to come up with something: all the good ideas are out there waiting to be discovered, and it really doesn't matter if the first discoverer of one gets distracted before reducing it to an edit, or can't put it across.
I'm going to proceed with a plan different for yours, in view of the fact that have listened to your arguments, found them wanting, and see that you have nothing of further significance to add to them -- other than continuing to assert them again, in response to each objection, without otherwise addressing the objections. It is possible that this reflects nothing more or less than stubbornness on your part, but i see no reason to think that: i assume that you don't adequately understand the objections.
( User:John Reid said that we had both lacked in civility, and seemed to see that as a problem in the discussion. I have not found your civility lacking; as to myself, it may be (as i implicitly noted to John) that i offended you when i spoke of "a presumptuous transvestite ... stand[ing] on a balcony". I would consider it offensive if i had been referring to the sort of things popes in fact literally do from the balcony over St. Peter's Square, but i was not: the context was the presumptuous act of whoever, acting in the Vatican's name, tried to erase centuries of scholarly practice, and the fact that "...in the world WP's users live in" the authority the Vatican's action per se confers on the change is the same authority a randomly chosen cross-dresser with a balcony would have. Perhaps it did nothing to lighten for your the dreary discussion; if you were offended, i hope this explanation soothes you.)
Before beginning implementation, i am going to state fairly thoroughly what i intend, at Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Potential Solutions)#Jerzy's Detailed Solution. I also contemplate a template-driven implementation that will minimize the effort needed to alter at least the fine structure of the parameters of this "sub-stystem design". (Reworking the coarse structure -- the choice of multiple Dab pages in my approach, rather than ToP Dabs in each article as i understand you contemplate -- must, AFAI can see, continue to require admin permissions and either hand editing or bot-work.) I have not notion that my approach to the fine structure is the best possible, and research on the actual prevalence of the two numbering schemes may fuel discussions justifying reworking the bios' titles; that seems likely enuf to justify the investment of a template structure that can minimize the long-term effort.
If you should find the means of bypassing the language barrier, please carry on here, and i will try to be at least as persistent as i was from the start. But pending that, i'll move forward on the basis of understanding your approach of "there was one right set of numbers and now there's a different single right set", and having heard no other objections.
--
Jerzy•
t
03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:Ignore all rules, I've diverged from WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages to add in a reference to the dispute regarding regnal numbering of the Popes Stephen. I used as a model Template:Pope Stephen ToP Dab which adds a hatnote to the pages on Popes Stephen this wording, "In some sources, this pope is called Stephen VI and Pope Stephen IV is called Stephen V. See Pope-elect Stephen for detailed explanations." Despite the departure from the disambug manual of style, I left the disambug tag since it is useful to ensure that internal links point to the right Pope Stephen. (I did skim through the 10-year-old archived discussions above but didn't seen any discussion explicitly and specifically on wording like what I added. Perhaps I missed something.) -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This disambiguation page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[Two archives are for discussion conducted at Talk:Pope Stephen III but broader in scope than that suggests:]
Prior to archiving (see that section, directly above), Jerzy closed a msg by saying:
And Švitrigaila responded:
_ _ I said before, that i hoped to do some refactoring before our continuing. Perhaps you missed that, or misunderstood. Or, if i exhausted your patience, i understand and sympathize. If you need to continue again before i can refactor, i understand and sympathize.
_ _IMO
Wikipedia:refactoring would help us be clear, partly by keeping topics together. For instance, you mentioned popes with 3 other names, and you keep referring to Leningrad. I have thots about those, but it would be better for me to respond at
Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Other Cases of Irregular Naming) than at this point on this page.
_ _ When i continue, i will find whatever the place was, where i said either "challenging your decision" or "challenging my decision". Then i will try to clarify.
_ _ What i fail to understand is your mentioning my "last intervention". These
definitions may help you with that word in the future. Does my "last intervention" consist of one paragraph, and end "...until i can carry that out"? Does it begin with "Thank you, i think..."?
_ _ But i have to go now.
--
Jerzy•
t 16:03 &
20:55, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've proposed a solution on
Areas of Consensus. (Maybe I should have posted it here insteed?) Do you agree with it?
Švitrigaila
13:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I've added a two points myself on the "... Consensus" sub-page. I think you agree with me on this both of these. If you disagree, the simplest thing is for you to move it one or both to the "Potential Solutions" sub-page.
--
Jerzy•
t 03:00 &
03:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I offer to address this contentious issue. I'm glad to see two editors trying hard to work things out with each other but I can also see the effort stalling. I don't think anyone is at fault.
Here are my qualifications as a neutral party:
My interests, insofar as they apply here, are limited to these goals:
Here is my offer:
To engage my services, the contesting parties must agree to abide by my final implementation. They must promise not to revert it, move affected pages, tamper with templates I have created to support the solution, or take the matter to another forum. They must promise not to lobby other editors during the period of exposure, nor after. Each agrees that any breach of these terms forfeits all merit in his cause.
Nothing in these terms will be taken to limit the freedom of other editors to act as they see fit within project policy.
Why do I require these conditions? For the same reasons that I offer myself to the task. I am quite serious about a definitive solution; yet I am completely neutral on the issue, because I am quite uninvolved. I will need to invest considerable time and energy to be sure I understand the issues fully; and to develop a satisfactory solution. I'm well aware that a minute later another editor may undo all my work. Will you two gentlemen agree not to throw stones at it? John Reid 10:31, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I read quite a bit of incivility in this discussion on all sides. I think you need help. You understand that the flip side of my entirely neutral position now is that I will have to put in a great deal of work in order to properly appreciate the situation. My solution will be binding upon no editor other than you two and only if you so accept. If you'd rather wrangle together, that's okay too. Let me know on my talk if you change your mind; I'm unwatching this page. John Reid 23:36, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm quite glad that you've brought to our attention the fact that our Pope Stephen suite showed complete ignorance of the existence of a second numbering scheme. As i've said, that requires corrective action.
I've devoted considerable effort to this area in which i have no particular interest. As i noted in the previous section, i was drawn into it in response to the very bad idea that using e.g. Pope Stephen II as a pipe to an article titled Pope Stephen III is an acceptable way to treat users even as an interim measure. I've found that your weak facility with the English language (which may explain your tin ear for en: WP practices) makes you the wrong messenger for your ideas about how to correct the articles, entirely independent of whatever merits those ideas have.
I doubt those ideas have any merit, but that is irrelevant. What i am saying is that if you want to have your arguments' influence go further, you need to find some kind of help in stating yourself more clearly in English, or understanding the English counteraguments well enough to respond to them, or perhaps both. Otherwise we must wait for someone else to independently discover the same ideas and formulate their own arguments for them. The good news in that is that WP flourishes on giving tens of thousands of editors the opportunity to come up with something: all the good ideas are out there waiting to be discovered, and it really doesn't matter if the first discoverer of one gets distracted before reducing it to an edit, or can't put it across.
I'm going to proceed with a plan different for yours, in view of the fact that have listened to your arguments, found them wanting, and see that you have nothing of further significance to add to them -- other than continuing to assert them again, in response to each objection, without otherwise addressing the objections. It is possible that this reflects nothing more or less than stubbornness on your part, but i see no reason to think that: i assume that you don't adequately understand the objections.
( User:John Reid said that we had both lacked in civility, and seemed to see that as a problem in the discussion. I have not found your civility lacking; as to myself, it may be (as i implicitly noted to John) that i offended you when i spoke of "a presumptuous transvestite ... stand[ing] on a balcony". I would consider it offensive if i had been referring to the sort of things popes in fact literally do from the balcony over St. Peter's Square, but i was not: the context was the presumptuous act of whoever, acting in the Vatican's name, tried to erase centuries of scholarly practice, and the fact that "...in the world WP's users live in" the authority the Vatican's action per se confers on the change is the same authority a randomly chosen cross-dresser with a balcony would have. Perhaps it did nothing to lighten for your the dreary discussion; if you were offended, i hope this explanation soothes you.)
Before beginning implementation, i am going to state fairly thoroughly what i intend, at Talk:Pope Stephen/Naming (Potential Solutions)#Jerzy's Detailed Solution. I also contemplate a template-driven implementation that will minimize the effort needed to alter at least the fine structure of the parameters of this "sub-stystem design". (Reworking the coarse structure -- the choice of multiple Dab pages in my approach, rather than ToP Dabs in each article as i understand you contemplate -- must, AFAI can see, continue to require admin permissions and either hand editing or bot-work.) I have not notion that my approach to the fine structure is the best possible, and research on the actual prevalence of the two numbering schemes may fuel discussions justifying reworking the bios' titles; that seems likely enuf to justify the investment of a template structure that can minimize the long-term effort.
If you should find the means of bypassing the language barrier, please carry on here, and i will try to be at least as persistent as i was from the start. But pending that, i'll move forward on the basis of understanding your approach of "there was one right set of numbers and now there's a different single right set", and having heard no other objections.
--
Jerzy•
t
03:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Per WP:Ignore all rules, I've diverged from WP:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages to add in a reference to the dispute regarding regnal numbering of the Popes Stephen. I used as a model Template:Pope Stephen ToP Dab which adds a hatnote to the pages on Popes Stephen this wording, "In some sources, this pope is called Stephen VI and Pope Stephen IV is called Stephen V. See Pope-elect Stephen for detailed explanations." Despite the departure from the disambug manual of style, I left the disambug tag since it is useful to ensure that internal links point to the right Pope Stephen. (I did skim through the 10-year-old archived discussions above but didn't seen any discussion explicitly and specifically on wording like what I added. Perhaps I missed something.) -- Iloilo Wanderer ( talk) 05:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)