Hi there! If I leave a message on your Talk Page, please respond there. Unless you indicate you'd prefer otherwise, I will respond to messages on my talk page here. Cheers! |
---|
Hi all, just trying out a very basic signature :-) --> A F K When Needed 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings...
Hello, A F K When Needed, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Please reverse the edits you made on Pregnancy.org. Thank you. Molleeb ( talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do, it isn't right that you edited what was correct factual information. I complied with the changes that had to be made. Please reverse your actions. There are real sites that are in huge violation of wiki policies. This one is not. The corrected information, not what is there, complies. Thank you. I have sent you an emai. It won't be fair to judge the page with the information you removed. Molleeb ( talk) 22:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree with your assessment. If I am not in compliance than neither is Babycenter, ivillage or the other 100's of websites here on WIKI. It isn't fair to remove my edits which made the entry comply with the wiki rules when other companies grossly get away with major advertising, like Johnson & Johnson. Molleeb ( talk) 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Look all I am saying is I didn't create the page in the first place. I am just trying to edit it so it complies with rules. Please go back to the edits I made because that follows wiki policy. Molleeb ( talk) 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I had 2 admins approve the page last night. Due to your inexperience, the page was deleted without warning sometime before morning. This is greatly disappointing and frustrating. It complied with the notability and verification, it was re-written to be more encyclopedic and comply with the rules at wiki. I have every right to remove, edit and change my words as I wish just like you thought you had every right to delete an entry. You also spelled pregnancy wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleeb ( talk • contribs)
Then I formally insist you delete the conversation here since you won't allow me to. It doesn't really appear to be relevant at this point any more. I did everything the 2 admins asked me to. They removed the delete tag. It wasn't put back. The entry was encyclopedic as of 10:30 pm EST last night, there were verifiable links added and notebilty. I did everything that was requested. Your note to NawlinWiki however, had him just go in and delete the page with no warning to me or the creator of the page. I did NOT create the original page. I did however make the entry comply with the rules. Your deletions of the edits I made didn't allow for the other admins to see the content. Molleeb ( talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I request the same. You obviously are sophmoric and rude. Molleeb ( talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, don't quite understand your post on my talk page...? · AndonicO Contact. 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi AFK. Welcome back to WP after your long break. I have read your comment on my talk page - thank you for your thoughts.
I'm a little puzzled though. I've not greatly changed my thoughts on the matter you raised, but I don't recall our having discussed the subject before? I'm wondering why you raised it with me, and especially at this juncture, given large time lags. I note that you seem to be a teenager, and wish to be people's internet friend - nothing wrong with that, of course.
Perhaps you'd care to answer my thoughts - here, preferably? Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. A few unrelated points, then ...
I applaud your English - you write very well for a teenager.
Your userboxes are not especially relevant to our conversation, I agree - I mentioned them partly to show I'd researched your declared standing.
Thank you for your comments re my appearing well-meaning & "contributor of great value" - praise indeed! Those are traits I'd certainly wish to acquire & project.
I think we differ on views re Edit Summaries. However, one thing puzzles me. At what stage - and how - did you become aware of me & my views re ESs? I ask because I have no recollection of our having any prior discourse on this or any other topic. Did something happen involving you, just recently? Alternatively, did you stumble across my profile?
Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not averse to discussing the merits of ESs, but first would you mind answering:
I note your apologies, & also your genuine & laudable response to others - e.g. the User_talk:A_F_K_When_Needed#Mohammed_Nabbous interaction below here.
However, from my standpoint: a user unknown to me (or unable or unwilling to state their connection to me) has started a conversation with me. They express dissatisfaction with some of my views & M.O. on Wikipedia. They offer me further uninvited 'advice' when challenged on their page. However they won't or can't play their cards cleanly, it seems. One has to wonder if they have more than one WP account (which I understand is disparaged if not even a serious policy infraction). I find my usual wp:AGF challenged, here, and would urge you to be more considerate. Trafford09 ( talk) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's recap:
Well, your inability to answer my Qn. makes me fearful of your own M.O., and I have to ask myself what your real answer might be. Given that your used id. (the one I'm now talking to) is not one previously familiar to me, then why would you choose to pass judgment on me, or start such a dsicussion? One possible explanation (pardon my musings, but if you don't give an answer then reader(s) may reach their own conclusions) is that this may be a new a/c of yours? I note that you have spurned your first opportunity to deny such a possibility.
I believe in a level playing field, so, for my part, let me assure you that this is my only account - and indeed the only one I have ever had - my archives would attest to that being the case. In all good discussions, it may be a show-stopper if one party declines to answer a reasonable Qn.. Further discussion time may be unwisely spent, I feel, unless one party is trolling - but I know that some of your work is well above such a level.
However, you've posed some qns. & for now I choose to answer them. Here goes.
A couple of further points: you seem to use the 'minor' flag for nearly all your edits - with respect, I feel you may be overusing it. Your last edit to this section contained a very long ES - some may prefer to see such commentary in the body of the edit.
Trafford09 ( talk) 13:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
AFK, when you presented yourself and your views on my talk page, I wondered why you felt you were qualified to do so. Thank you for now offering an explanation as to why you are acting as an interlocutor for person or persons unnamed - I may refer to them as 'your friend'. I must accept that you nonetheless feel a pressing need, whilst you're not directly involved, have time issues with your forthcoming exams, and know that months that have elapsed since any event to which you are referring.
As you acknowledged in your earliest talk with me, I "appear to be unusually open to discussion". That being the case, did you suggest to your friend that they might wish to put their own case to me directly? Of course, they are very welcome still to do so, at any juncture, and I always try to engage with fellow editors - indeed as I am doing now - even if I may occasionally disagree with them on some issue.
But, if you feel some intervention by a 'third party' such as yourself may help, that's fine by me - although as I say, my conscience is pretty clear, and if I were to know your friend's Id or IP at the time of the old event, it would assist our discussion - maybe even to your friend's advantage. You have just now said that you don't want to break your friend's confidence. Well, naturally I understand that and am sympathetic to the constraints which that would place on you. I'm happy to discuss my views on ESs and any perceived concerns you or 'your friend' may have on the issue, even though your a/c here makes good use of ESs of course.
One of your userboxes states that you want to be peoples' internet friend. That being so, I have to say I found your initial contact less friendly than it might have been. Indeed it acknowledged that it might be felt aggravating - a poor start to friendship. Another of your userboxes states you're a teenager, so I put some of your tone down to the confidence & self-righteousness of youth. May I suggest we should not assume we have the moral high ground, nor talk as though 'we know best', but instead have a polite discussion on an equal footing.
Now, your basic stance re ESs - as I see it - is that they are entirely optional - just as say the colour of one's signature. However, you do concede that some users value ESs, and your a/c provides good ES coverage.
But I have to disagree in some respects - and I'll explain my viewpoint piecemeal if you'll permit me - as I could envisage you'd wish to intervene before I went too far in my arguments, and I want to encourage your input to such a debate.
Whilst technically ESs may be defined as purely optional, Wikipedia (WP) does however a stated preference FOR using ESs. WP describes them as helpful. One wouldn't expect all editors to be helpful all the time. However, as a general rule helpful editing is rewarded - many of us of course like to applaud good work where we see it. Conversely, if an editor is hardly ever helpful, WP has standard TW messages etc. to politely notify them of better practise.
Such is the case, I believe, with the standard polite TW message: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to WWW. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Such messages hopefully spur greater thought on the part of the editor reading them, and encourage them to be more helpful - or indeed to argue their own case for not doing so - free speech is greatly encouraged.
This is I think a good place to pause & see if you have problems with what I've said here so far. Over to you, & I'll resume later. Trafford09 ( talk) 13:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Thank you for your points. Also, I note that the distrust between ourselves has dropped, and with it the tone of our talk - no recent mentions of hostility, attacks, accusations etc.. Thank you for your part in that, and I hope to play my full part in the ongoing constructive discussion. Sorry to hear your health is poor. Your speedy recovery is higher in my thoughts than WP & certainly higher than the promptness of your replies.
Whilst we acknowledge the other has perhaps strong but differing feelings re ESs etc., I am sure that - as in most potential disputes - the editors are essentially on the same side in the bigger picture. All want a better WP, for everybody's benefit, and we discuss merely the best way (& there may be 'equal' best ways) of achieving that. I expect you concur with such broad sentiments.
Before I resume my piecemeal analysis of how I may have conducted myself with the unnamed editor - the one with whom you say you have spoken - may I reiterate or elaborate on a couple of things. I have always been happy to discuss any matter a fellow editor cares to raise with me or reply to me about. I aim always to encourage discussion. I would urge your friend - or any other editor - to contact me directly, and they will have a full response. I'd go so far as to say that - should your friend or any editor still feel aggrieved at me, please would they let me know. I'll review my conduct with them, be happy to discuss it, and we can see if any or all parties can learn from it. And yes, if I feel I could have dealt with them better, I'll admit so and apologise accordingly for my part, should I feel that such is the case. With any editor, I first wp:AGF, but if I get no response or the response is non-AGF, I feel I should reserve the right to be assertive if necessary - I like to think that I am a non-aggressive person, and that aggression is a poor way to improve WP.
Now, I spoke last time about a scenario (I have to be vague, as you have not said who the editor is) where I may have posted a single std. TW message re ESs on that editor's talk page. I paused with you, at that point, to see if you had any problems thus far. You permitted this piecemeal pause. Whilst you commented about "more than one message" and offered your views on the latter, you said you had no problems with said single TW msg. being posted - fine so far, then - good to hear that.
Now it gets more complicated as, not knowing the editor's a/c, one has to guess at their response if any to the TW msg..
A good response would be where they were prepared to discuss the msg. - after all, TW says ESs are helpful & it gives reasons why. If an editor wants to say why they they choose not to be helpful, I'm more than happy to discuss that with them.
Another good if not better response would be where the editor chose to take TW's advice, and be (more) helpful wrt ESs. I would essentially be pleased, and feel no further cause to engage with the editor.
If the TW msg. was totally ignored, then - as in any case - the initiating editor (me) could simply walk away. On the other hand, they might (as I guess I would) assert their right - perhaps even responsibility as an editor who wants to see WP improved - to further support WP's preference for ESs. Would your preference be the first option - revert to the easy life & always walk away?
Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
My turn to thank you for the kind words. Apols. for the delay.
I picked up some points you made.
Different people hold different views of the desirability of ESs - some may even see them as an entirely useless facility which should thus be removed. But, overriding any individual preference is consensus, which tells us that they are helpful, and WP encourages all of us to use them.
Yes, ESs may be misused e.g. by vandals, but if they insert misleading ESs, they soon lose their AGF and are spotted for what they are. One downside (indeed - any no.) doesn't override consensus.
I spoke about the situation where an editor used no ESs, and appeared not to read a std. TW msg.. I invited you to state what you would then do - walk away or try again. Your reply stated what you wouldn't do (repeated templating - but I hadn't got that far in the scenario yet), yet didn't state what you would do. Please could you answer that question?
You referred to 'attempting to impose ESs' - well again, our scenario hadn't reached such a point (& I agree that imposing is neither desirable nor indeed possible).
Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 12:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is a constructive discussion between 2 people keen to improve WP.
I still feel that you haven't answered my question; you refer only to a situation where you "knew a user was aware of the tool". But in the scenario I described, I specifically referred to where an editor "appeared not to read a std. TW msg.". In other words, one cannot know that they are aware of anything. You also said that "they've read the message and gotten the point". Well, again, in the scenario I described, there is no evidence to support either of the assumptions that are implicit in your last quote.
You leave me to guess what your course of action would be, in such a scenario. Do I take it you would walk away, rather than try something else? I'm not talking (yet - you said I was allowed a piecemeal defence) about multiple templates.
When you say you are "highly dismissive of the preference", do you mean you doubt whether consensus prefers the use of ESs? If so, I would argue strongly against your assertion. Trafford09 ( talk) 15:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh - I forgot about the point you raised in your ES: "If someone ignores your message; it is their right to do so. It is most certainly not your right to force the issue by repeatedly bringing it up. Particularly with the section header being the month of the year - that is most ignorant imo)".
(It's easy to overlook a paragraph in an ES - prob. better - for various reasons - to put the point(s) into the body of the talk page, and just use say 'cmt' as the ES.)
So - about the e.g. "April 2011" section header. Have you used TW yourself? Didn't you know it generates such a heading automatically, with any std. msg.? If I create a header myself, I do try to be more imaginative. Trafford09 ( talk) 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
As you have seen, Mohammed Nabbous, this amazing and unique young Libyan, was killed yesterday while recording events in or around Benghazi. Many people are asking where they can find the best links to understand who he was. Can we use Wikipedia to build such a page, including MANY embedded multi-media files (sound and video) or should we do it somewhere else and link to it? Many of us are convinced that Mo, as he was known, will have great historical significance, since he drastically advanced the concept of citizen journalism.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosherfrog ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
[Edited slightly to make different topics discussed by different people be in different sections. A F K When Needed 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever references were missing from the Wikipedia article have now been added. Please do not edit it again. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.154.118 ( talk) 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A Tesla Roadster for you! | |
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 ( talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC) |
Hi there! If I leave a message on your Talk Page, please respond there. Unless you indicate you'd prefer otherwise, I will respond to messages on my talk page here. Cheers! |
---|
Hi all, just trying out a very basic signature :-) --> A F K When Needed 10:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Greetings...
Hello, A F K When Needed, and welcome to Wikipedia!
Please reverse the edits you made on Pregnancy.org. Thank you. Molleeb ( talk) 22:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Please do, it isn't right that you edited what was correct factual information. I complied with the changes that had to be made. Please reverse your actions. There are real sites that are in huge violation of wiki policies. This one is not. The corrected information, not what is there, complies. Thank you. I have sent you an emai. It won't be fair to judge the page with the information you removed. Molleeb ( talk) 22:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I would strongly disagree with your assessment. If I am not in compliance than neither is Babycenter, ivillage or the other 100's of websites here on WIKI. It isn't fair to remove my edits which made the entry comply with the wiki rules when other companies grossly get away with major advertising, like Johnson & Johnson. Molleeb ( talk) 22:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Look all I am saying is I didn't create the page in the first place. I am just trying to edit it so it complies with rules. Please go back to the edits I made because that follows wiki policy. Molleeb ( talk) 22:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I had 2 admins approve the page last night. Due to your inexperience, the page was deleted without warning sometime before morning. This is greatly disappointing and frustrating. It complied with the notability and verification, it was re-written to be more encyclopedic and comply with the rules at wiki. I have every right to remove, edit and change my words as I wish just like you thought you had every right to delete an entry. You also spelled pregnancy wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Moleeb ( talk • contribs)
Then I formally insist you delete the conversation here since you won't allow me to. It doesn't really appear to be relevant at this point any more. I did everything the 2 admins asked me to. They removed the delete tag. It wasn't put back. The entry was encyclopedic as of 10:30 pm EST last night, there were verifiable links added and notebilty. I did everything that was requested. Your note to NawlinWiki however, had him just go in and delete the page with no warning to me or the creator of the page. I did NOT create the original page. I did however make the entry comply with the rules. Your deletions of the edits I made didn't allow for the other admins to see the content. Molleeb ( talk) 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Then I request the same. You obviously are sophmoric and rude. Molleeb ( talk) 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Sorry, don't quite understand your post on my talk page...? · AndonicO Contact. 17:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi AFK. Welcome back to WP after your long break. I have read your comment on my talk page - thank you for your thoughts.
I'm a little puzzled though. I've not greatly changed my thoughts on the matter you raised, but I don't recall our having discussed the subject before? I'm wondering why you raised it with me, and especially at this juncture, given large time lags. I note that you seem to be a teenager, and wish to be people's internet friend - nothing wrong with that, of course.
Perhaps you'd care to answer my thoughts - here, preferably? Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 22:21, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. A few unrelated points, then ...
I applaud your English - you write very well for a teenager.
Your userboxes are not especially relevant to our conversation, I agree - I mentioned them partly to show I'd researched your declared standing.
Thank you for your comments re my appearing well-meaning & "contributor of great value" - praise indeed! Those are traits I'd certainly wish to acquire & project.
I think we differ on views re Edit Summaries. However, one thing puzzles me. At what stage - and how - did you become aware of me & my views re ESs? I ask because I have no recollection of our having any prior discourse on this or any other topic. Did something happen involving you, just recently? Alternatively, did you stumble across my profile?
Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 09:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
I'm not averse to discussing the merits of ESs, but first would you mind answering:
I note your apologies, & also your genuine & laudable response to others - e.g. the User_talk:A_F_K_When_Needed#Mohammed_Nabbous interaction below here.
However, from my standpoint: a user unknown to me (or unable or unwilling to state their connection to me) has started a conversation with me. They express dissatisfaction with some of my views & M.O. on Wikipedia. They offer me further uninvited 'advice' when challenged on their page. However they won't or can't play their cards cleanly, it seems. One has to wonder if they have more than one WP account (which I understand is disparaged if not even a serious policy infraction). I find my usual wp:AGF challenged, here, and would urge you to be more considerate. Trafford09 ( talk) 06:46, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Let's recap:
Well, your inability to answer my Qn. makes me fearful of your own M.O., and I have to ask myself what your real answer might be. Given that your used id. (the one I'm now talking to) is not one previously familiar to me, then why would you choose to pass judgment on me, or start such a dsicussion? One possible explanation (pardon my musings, but if you don't give an answer then reader(s) may reach their own conclusions) is that this may be a new a/c of yours? I note that you have spurned your first opportunity to deny such a possibility.
I believe in a level playing field, so, for my part, let me assure you that this is my only account - and indeed the only one I have ever had - my archives would attest to that being the case. In all good discussions, it may be a show-stopper if one party declines to answer a reasonable Qn.. Further discussion time may be unwisely spent, I feel, unless one party is trolling - but I know that some of your work is well above such a level.
However, you've posed some qns. & for now I choose to answer them. Here goes.
A couple of further points: you seem to use the 'minor' flag for nearly all your edits - with respect, I feel you may be overusing it. Your last edit to this section contained a very long ES - some may prefer to see such commentary in the body of the edit.
Trafford09 ( talk) 13:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
AFK, when you presented yourself and your views on my talk page, I wondered why you felt you were qualified to do so. Thank you for now offering an explanation as to why you are acting as an interlocutor for person or persons unnamed - I may refer to them as 'your friend'. I must accept that you nonetheless feel a pressing need, whilst you're not directly involved, have time issues with your forthcoming exams, and know that months that have elapsed since any event to which you are referring.
As you acknowledged in your earliest talk with me, I "appear to be unusually open to discussion". That being the case, did you suggest to your friend that they might wish to put their own case to me directly? Of course, they are very welcome still to do so, at any juncture, and I always try to engage with fellow editors - indeed as I am doing now - even if I may occasionally disagree with them on some issue.
But, if you feel some intervention by a 'third party' such as yourself may help, that's fine by me - although as I say, my conscience is pretty clear, and if I were to know your friend's Id or IP at the time of the old event, it would assist our discussion - maybe even to your friend's advantage. You have just now said that you don't want to break your friend's confidence. Well, naturally I understand that and am sympathetic to the constraints which that would place on you. I'm happy to discuss my views on ESs and any perceived concerns you or 'your friend' may have on the issue, even though your a/c here makes good use of ESs of course.
One of your userboxes states that you want to be peoples' internet friend. That being so, I have to say I found your initial contact less friendly than it might have been. Indeed it acknowledged that it might be felt aggravating - a poor start to friendship. Another of your userboxes states you're a teenager, so I put some of your tone down to the confidence & self-righteousness of youth. May I suggest we should not assume we have the moral high ground, nor talk as though 'we know best', but instead have a polite discussion on an equal footing.
Now, your basic stance re ESs - as I see it - is that they are entirely optional - just as say the colour of one's signature. However, you do concede that some users value ESs, and your a/c provides good ES coverage.
But I have to disagree in some respects - and I'll explain my viewpoint piecemeal if you'll permit me - as I could envisage you'd wish to intervene before I went too far in my arguments, and I want to encourage your input to such a debate.
Whilst technically ESs may be defined as purely optional, Wikipedia (WP) does however a stated preference FOR using ESs. WP describes them as helpful. One wouldn't expect all editors to be helpful all the time. However, as a general rule helpful editing is rewarded - many of us of course like to applaud good work where we see it. Conversely, if an editor is hardly ever helpful, WP has standard TW messages etc. to politely notify them of better practise.
Such is the case, I believe, with the standard polite TW message: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to WWW. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.
Such messages hopefully spur greater thought on the part of the editor reading them, and encourage them to be more helpful - or indeed to argue their own case for not doing so - free speech is greatly encouraged.
This is I think a good place to pause & see if you have problems with what I've said here so far. Over to you, & I'll resume later. Trafford09 ( talk) 13:07, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Hi again. Thank you for your points. Also, I note that the distrust between ourselves has dropped, and with it the tone of our talk - no recent mentions of hostility, attacks, accusations etc.. Thank you for your part in that, and I hope to play my full part in the ongoing constructive discussion. Sorry to hear your health is poor. Your speedy recovery is higher in my thoughts than WP & certainly higher than the promptness of your replies.
Whilst we acknowledge the other has perhaps strong but differing feelings re ESs etc., I am sure that - as in most potential disputes - the editors are essentially on the same side in the bigger picture. All want a better WP, for everybody's benefit, and we discuss merely the best way (& there may be 'equal' best ways) of achieving that. I expect you concur with such broad sentiments.
Before I resume my piecemeal analysis of how I may have conducted myself with the unnamed editor - the one with whom you say you have spoken - may I reiterate or elaborate on a couple of things. I have always been happy to discuss any matter a fellow editor cares to raise with me or reply to me about. I aim always to encourage discussion. I would urge your friend - or any other editor - to contact me directly, and they will have a full response. I'd go so far as to say that - should your friend or any editor still feel aggrieved at me, please would they let me know. I'll review my conduct with them, be happy to discuss it, and we can see if any or all parties can learn from it. And yes, if I feel I could have dealt with them better, I'll admit so and apologise accordingly for my part, should I feel that such is the case. With any editor, I first wp:AGF, but if I get no response or the response is non-AGF, I feel I should reserve the right to be assertive if necessary - I like to think that I am a non-aggressive person, and that aggression is a poor way to improve WP.
Now, I spoke last time about a scenario (I have to be vague, as you have not said who the editor is) where I may have posted a single std. TW message re ESs on that editor's talk page. I paused with you, at that point, to see if you had any problems thus far. You permitted this piecemeal pause. Whilst you commented about "more than one message" and offered your views on the latter, you said you had no problems with said single TW msg. being posted - fine so far, then - good to hear that.
Now it gets more complicated as, not knowing the editor's a/c, one has to guess at their response if any to the TW msg..
A good response would be where they were prepared to discuss the msg. - after all, TW says ESs are helpful & it gives reasons why. If an editor wants to say why they they choose not to be helpful, I'm more than happy to discuss that with them.
Another good if not better response would be where the editor chose to take TW's advice, and be (more) helpful wrt ESs. I would essentially be pleased, and feel no further cause to engage with the editor.
If the TW msg. was totally ignored, then - as in any case - the initiating editor (me) could simply walk away. On the other hand, they might (as I guess I would) assert their right - perhaps even responsibility as an editor who wants to see WP improved - to further support WP's preference for ESs. Would your preference be the first option - revert to the easy life & always walk away?
Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 15:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
My turn to thank you for the kind words. Apols. for the delay.
I picked up some points you made.
Different people hold different views of the desirability of ESs - some may even see them as an entirely useless facility which should thus be removed. But, overriding any individual preference is consensus, which tells us that they are helpful, and WP encourages all of us to use them.
Yes, ESs may be misused e.g. by vandals, but if they insert misleading ESs, they soon lose their AGF and are spotted for what they are. One downside (indeed - any no.) doesn't override consensus.
I spoke about the situation where an editor used no ESs, and appeared not to read a std. TW msg.. I invited you to state what you would then do - walk away or try again. Your reply stated what you wouldn't do (repeated templating - but I hadn't got that far in the scenario yet), yet didn't state what you would do. Please could you answer that question?
You referred to 'attempting to impose ESs' - well again, our scenario hadn't reached such a point (& I agree that imposing is neither desirable nor indeed possible).
Regards, Trafford09 ( talk) 12:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
I hope this is a constructive discussion between 2 people keen to improve WP.
I still feel that you haven't answered my question; you refer only to a situation where you "knew a user was aware of the tool". But in the scenario I described, I specifically referred to where an editor "appeared not to read a std. TW msg.". In other words, one cannot know that they are aware of anything. You also said that "they've read the message and gotten the point". Well, again, in the scenario I described, there is no evidence to support either of the assumptions that are implicit in your last quote.
You leave me to guess what your course of action would be, in such a scenario. Do I take it you would walk away, rather than try something else? I'm not talking (yet - you said I was allowed a piecemeal defence) about multiple templates.
When you say you are "highly dismissive of the preference", do you mean you doubt whether consensus prefers the use of ESs? If so, I would argue strongly against your assertion. Trafford09 ( talk) 15:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh - I forgot about the point you raised in your ES: "If someone ignores your message; it is their right to do so. It is most certainly not your right to force the issue by repeatedly bringing it up. Particularly with the section header being the month of the year - that is most ignorant imo)".
(It's easy to overlook a paragraph in an ES - prob. better - for various reasons - to put the point(s) into the body of the talk page, and just use say 'cmt' as the ES.)
So - about the e.g. "April 2011" section header. Have you used TW yourself? Didn't you know it generates such a heading automatically, with any std. msg.? If I create a header myself, I do try to be more imaginative. Trafford09 ( talk) 15:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
As you have seen, Mohammed Nabbous, this amazing and unique young Libyan, was killed yesterday while recording events in or around Benghazi. Many people are asking where they can find the best links to understand who he was. Can we use Wikipedia to build such a page, including MANY embedded multi-media files (sound and video) or should we do it somewhere else and link to it? Many of us are convinced that Mo, as he was known, will have great historical significance, since he drastically advanced the concept of citizen journalism.
Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kosherfrog ( talk • contribs) 22:13, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
[Edited slightly to make different topics discussed by different people be in different sections. A F K When Needed 15:37, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Whatever references were missing from the Wikipedia article have now been added. Please do not edit it again. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.52.154.118 ( talk) 11:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
A Tesla Roadster for you! | |
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Gg53000 ( talk) 14:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC) |