I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 15 February 2007 through about 1 March 2007 (minus South Tyrol stuff). Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
The following is some text that I have placed on a few editors talk pages, and on the Policy talkpage. I suspect a simile involving fans is appropriate here. Do you know of any decent editors who may be able to adjudicate on this matter, should such a service be required? Mark.
I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.
The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.
Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.
Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponents of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.
More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.
I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as)
bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project.
LessHeard vanU 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I created the article Xiong Yan with references and see also section, but they couldn't show up. Can you help please? Thanks! Wooyi 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
JzG claims, persistently, that the reason I want a link to Tim Ireland's blog about Anne Milton mentioned in the article on Anne Milton is that I am politically opposed to Anne Milton. He has no evidence of that and yet refuses to withdraw it. That is merely one specific unwarranted accusation. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have the time, please could you look here and check that the discussed matter, creating a stub to hold a list sub page, would be okay from a Wikipedia viewpoint? Thanks. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Wikipedia privacy policy. Dino 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Having watched a few afd absurdities recently it would probably go for keep :( -- yes - I had three admin friends last night i left notes about this one - complete and utter crap. So I am about to change my wording in that talk Satu Suro 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Larry
Just wanted to let you know that it looks like our old friend is, see the contributions of User:Arigato1. Except Rollo, it is the same garbage again. I won't revert the Greenland nonsense again to avoid being accused of 3RR, but "Arigato1" don't seem to have the same concerns. Valentinian T / C 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_may_or_may_not_be_failing. Needs a humor tag though, think I'll start an edit war about that. :) ++ Lar: t/ c 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Lar, you're asleep and I won't be on IRC when you will tomorrow, so here we go. The article was 99% most likely a copyvio from the getgo by Primetime, as exhibited here. As Will Beback points out:
So that being said, I think the whole old version is a wash and needs a new start. The illustration should not be copyrighted so it should be fine. I'm looking forward to seeing the new article. Teke ( talk) 05:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
... in the discussion about " Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? Please add any additional comments to the existing discussion on this page. Dino 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I have removed this RFA from WP:RFA. The instructions given under Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate state that the nominee should (1) accept the nom, (2) answer the questions, (3) change the time, and (4) transclude the RFA. Step 3 is trivial, but I don't think it would be fair to him to have the RFA transcluded and have oppose !votes sway the thing simply because he hasn't yet had a chance for step 2. -- BigDT 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw you made some good improvements to the wording on T:DYK/N... when changeing wording there, don't forget to change the wording at Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear as well, because that's used to refresh, so your changes would be lost (if not done there) at the next time ../clear was used to refresh. I wonder if that tip needs to be saved somewhere :) ++ Lar: t/ c 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Lar. An anonymous editor User talk:24.11.154.225 is screwing up the Coney Island hot dog article. Can you check it out? Steelbeard1 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops about the email - I neglected to check the "allow" box. Apologies. The user's only purpose is promoting his mnemonic system. There was not a single noba fide contribution. See my deletion log prior to the block for a list of things deleted. But if you wish to unblock, go ahead. - NYC JD (make a motion) 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for the late delivery. Filling in for Vishwin60: Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I know you were kidding, but you'll be pleased to know that I'm currently finishing off Poland (I'd say "polishing off Poland", but y'know...), so we're coming inexorably closer to the end of the alphabet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.
This is an archive of User talk:Lar from about 15 February 2007 through about 1 March 2007 (minus South Tyrol stuff). Please do not comment here, use my current talk page for that, thanks. It is part of a series of archives, see the box at right for the list and to navigate to others. An index to all my talk page archives, automatically maintained by User:HBC Archive Indexerbot can be found at User:Lar/TalkArchiveIndex. |
|
The following is some text that I have placed on a few editors talk pages, and on the Policy talkpage. I suspect a simile involving fans is appropriate here. Do you know of any decent editors who may be able to adjudicate on this matter, should such a service be required? Mark.
I was going to step away from this, since I was only going by the rules and I didn't want to get into a big dispute (especially with editors who I respect and have enjoyed working with), but recent events have brought me back.
The debate about naming the convention regarding the capitalisation or not of the letter "t" of the in t/The Beatles has been going on for a while. I have endured the snide remarks of a Twit, and have engaged in civil debate with some others who continued to question Project policy regarding the issue. I pointed out the need to establish a reasonable argument for their viewpoint over and above that of some professional knowledge so there could be a debate. When they did provide reasonable grounds for reopening the debate I used the offices of the Beatles Newsletter Issue 9:Issue of the Month to request comment, debate on the matter. There was no response. In the next Newsletter Issue 10:Issue of last Month I commented that there had been no response, and that the Project policy would be altered to use of the lowercase. Again, nobody other than the proponents responded. After a brief while I did as I said I would, and amended the Policy.
The new Policy is not to the liking of some of the editors involved the the Beatles Project (as the previous one was not to others.) After the policy was implemented reasons and arguments for retaining the previous convention were given. Authorities were cited and some discussion was created. Very recently more than one editor has edited Beatles related articles specifically to reflect the previous policy.
My preference is to capitalise the letter t of the in the Beatles.
Wikipedia has very few rules; two of the most important relate to consensus and verifiability.
Wikipedia:WikiProject The Beatles has a specific area for the implementation (following debate and consensus) of Policy. The associate talkpage records the debate and the arguments used in reaching Policy decisions. The Project also maintains the principle of abiding by the rules that have been agreed, and the fundemental Wikipedia ethos of consensus.
No recent discussion occurred when the matter of the use of lowercase or uppercase was notified in two Newsletters, other than between myself and the proponents of lowercase at the Policy talkpage. Since Policy implementation discussion has only occurred on the talkpages of concerned editors, or on the talkpages of some of the articles, and not at the Policy talkpage.
More than one editor has unilaterally decided to ignore the new Policy, going so far as to amend articles to reflect the previous convention.
The Beatles Project is being disrupted by editors who I personally know to be conscientious and dedicated contributors of long and good standing. In that there is now occurring what might be considered vandalism (the knowing altering of articles in a manner that is against Wikipedian and Project rules and policy), likely as a result of their strongly held views, I believe that this matter needs urgent addressing. I am copying this to the Policy talkpage, and to all the editors involved in formulating the new policy and the recent opponents. I suggest that this debate is taken there, and that this matter is decided in a civil manner in accordance with the principles of Wikipedia.
I am deeply saddened that it has come to this. I am depressed that editors (people) whose integrity and civility (not to say sheer fun) I had been proud to be associated with have acted in (what I see as)
bad faith and flagrant disregard for the rules and guidelines of both Wikipedia and The Beatles Project.
LessHeard vanU 00:09, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
I created the article Xiong Yan with references and see also section, but they couldn't show up. Can you help please? Thanks! Wooyi 15:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
JzG claims, persistently, that the reason I want a link to Tim Ireland's blog about Anne Milton mentioned in the article on Anne Milton is that I am politically opposed to Anne Milton. He has no evidence of that and yet refuses to withdraw it. That is merely one specific unwarranted accusation. Fys. Ta fys aym. 20:45, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
If you have the time, please could you look here and check that the discussed matter, creating a stub to hold a list sub page, would be okay from a Wikipedia viewpoint? Thanks. LessHeard vanU 13:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Please delete JzG's recent post on the User Talk page of Chicagostyledog, as well as the record of it in the edit history. It contains a disclosure of personal information that violates the Wikipedia privacy policy. Dino 02:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Having watched a few afd absurdities recently it would probably go for keep :( -- yes - I had three admin friends last night i left notes about this one - complete and utter crap. So I am about to change my wording in that talk Satu Suro 23:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Larry
Just wanted to let you know that it looks like our old friend is, see the contributions of User:Arigato1. Except Rollo, it is the same garbage again. I won't revert the Greenland nonsense again to avoid being accused of 3RR, but "Arigato1" don't seem to have the same concerns. Valentinian T / C 18:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Wikipedia_may_or_may_not_be_failing. Needs a humor tag though, think I'll start an edit war about that. :) ++ Lar: t/ c 22:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey Lar, you're asleep and I won't be on IRC when you will tomorrow, so here we go. The article was 99% most likely a copyvio from the getgo by Primetime, as exhibited here. As Will Beback points out:
So that being said, I think the whole old version is a wash and needs a new start. The illustration should not be copyrighted so it should be fine. I'm looking forward to seeing the new article. Teke ( talk) 05:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
... in the discussion about " Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises should be official policy." The goal is to protect Wikipedia's reputation as a neutral encyclopedic resource, and protect Wikipedia from civil liability. The consensus appears to be that WP:BLP should be modified to include ongoing enterprises. What do you think? Please add any additional comments to the existing discussion on this page. Dino 12:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
FYI, I have removed this RFA from WP:RFA. The instructions given under Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate state that the nominee should (1) accept the nom, (2) answer the questions, (3) change the time, and (4) transclude the RFA. Step 3 is trivial, but I don't think it would be fair to him to have the RFA transcluded and have oppose !votes sway the thing simply because he hasn't yet had a chance for step 2. -- BigDT 18:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I saw you made some good improvements to the wording on T:DYK/N... when changeing wording there, don't forget to change the wording at Template:Did you know/Next update/Clear as well, because that's used to refresh, so your changes would be lost (if not done there) at the next time ../clear was used to refresh. I wonder if that tip needs to be saved somewhere :) ++ Lar: t/ c 21:35, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello again, Lar. An anonymous editor User talk:24.11.154.225 is screwing up the Coney Island hot dog article. Can you check it out? Steelbeard1 23:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Oops about the email - I neglected to check the "allow" box. Apologies. The user's only purpose is promoting his mnemonic system. There was not a single noba fide contribution. See my deletion log prior to the block for a list of things deleted. But if you wish to unblock, go ahead. - NYC JD (make a motion) 13:46, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
![]() ![]() The U.S. Roads WikiProject Newsletter | ||||||||||||||
Volume 1, Issue 2 | 24 February 2007 | About the Newsletter | ||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
|
Apologies for the late delivery. Filling in for Vishwin60: Rschen7754 ( talk - contribs) 05:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I know you were kidding, but you'll be pleased to know that I'm currently finishing off Poland (I'd say "polishing off Poland", but y'know...), so we're coming inexorably closer to the end of the alphabet. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:14, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
The February 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Delivered by grafikbot 17:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)