This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
your "comment" here appears to be a vote for keep but you have not marked it as such...I am correct? LibStar ( talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
see this and the article. WHat should I do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Thrikkunnathu_Seminary
-- ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו ( talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't do anything now. I've brought the matter to the attention of an administrator. I hope that they will decide to protect the page to prevent any further editing until there has been a full and proper discussion on the talk page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have any further difficulty in reaching a policy-based consensus, please notify me here and I will try to help you.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support, I have yet to review your RfA, but am going to. Cheers and happy editing.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Just pinging you, in case you miss my follow up question. Sorry for the volume of them--they're questions I began collecting on my subpage because I'd begun thinking, "I want to ask them all at RFA", but I'd always forget. rootology ( C)( T) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in category sorting, but I don't know the first thing about it or what it even is? Can you help me get started? Thanks. GandalftheWise : Talk Page 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
After you've installed Hotcat, when you look at the bottom of this page, you should be able to see a button that says:
If you go to an article, say, George W. Bush, you'll see that he fits into LOADS of categories. But an important one is Category:Living people. Every article that's a biography of a living person needs to be in this category; it's really important. So what you could do is, hunt down articles on people who're still alive, and with a couple of clicks, add them to Category:Living people.
Let me know if you get stuck!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I write to you because of your recent edit to WP:Too long; didn't read-- here
I'm told that I need help in improving my writing. Articles present no problem, but I don't do well enough in talk page venues. I know that this is a non-standard request. I urge you to construe it as just one step in a process of mitigating fundamental flaws in in the way I address issues like logical fallacies or unfounded complaints. Until this week, I theorized that my problems arose when I attempted persuasive writing rather than expository prose, but it's not that simple. An illustrative example of my writing is to be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.
Voting is underway at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.
Proposed ArbCom findings of fact included:
ArbCom remedies included:
When I initiated this ArbCom case, my intentions were quite limited, as explained best in my response to John Vandenberg here and as presented initially at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty#Statement by Tenmei. However, the proposed decision's locus of dispute explains that "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved."
Caspian blue and others have determined that I am Japanese, despite the fact that I have avoided self-labeling in terms of nationality, gender, marital status, etc. I gather that Caspian blue has endured a number of caustic disputes with anonymous contributors and sockpuppets; and many of these were seen to have originated in Japan. Caspian blue is Korean; and aggrieved complaints about perceived anti-Korean bias are commonplace, not only involving those like me with perceived or actual Japanese backgrounds.
As ipso facto "evidence" of my "long-term harassment", Caspian blue alleges here that in 2008 "Tenmei ... attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ...." Inexplicably, Caspian blue's 2008 complaint at WP:AN/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks did not encompass this specific claim ... which I would have thought implies that it simply didn't happen.
This one example suggests complicated subtexts affecting a broad tranche of wiki-edits. A risk aversion strategy has thus far proven inadequate; and ArbCom is correct in anticipating future difficulties.
I'm guessing that this message to you is arguably the sort of gesture ArbCom wants from me. Perhaps you will construe it as an illustrative example of WP:TLDR.
If you are willing to discuss this off-wiki, I've activated the e-mail send/receive option in my user preferences.
Thank you for the time you invested in reading this. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a very complex request and it will take me time to read through what's happened and try to answer it in a sufficiently thorough way.
Please be patient for a little while as I do that, but rest assured that I am looking into it and I will answer soon.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tenmei, again.
On reviewing your contributions, I don't think it will take you long. You're clearly rather intelligent, and I think all that's needed are tweaks, different habits of speech, and different tools for responding rather than anything major.
I have now begun to read the background to this matter. I am dismayed because a lot of it seems to be about things far beyond my expertise. I'm sorry to say that I have little knowledge of China, Korea, and Japan, and I am very aware it would be easy for me to give offence by accident. If I do, I did not mean to.
I want to say a few things about ArbCom, and then a few things about English.
Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" system doesn't resolve content disputes. That's not what it's for. It deals only with matters of conduct. Wikipedia does not have a system for resolving content disputes. This is the central fact about ArbCom.
Where an editor is in a content dispute, they will sometimes try to find ways to turn it into a conduct dispute, because once bad conduct on the other side's part has been shown, they will be sanctioned — and the content dispute is won by default. There are Wikipedians who are very good at using this system to their benefit.
It follows that when you are in a content dispute, it is essential to avoid giving the other side a chance to make it into a conduct dispute. This calls for extremely careful use of language, and I am pleased to see you have acted quite correctly by asking someone about it.
I want to say that personally, I am unwilling to edit any page concerned with an ArbCom dispute. I do not participate there. I have never done so and I hope I never will.
I hope this helps you, and I wish you the best of luck with your dispute.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bonsai tree!
There's a lot about Wikipedia that's beyond everyone's grasp. I'm certain that even Jimbo Wales would be baffled by many of the things that happen here.
I'm going to take one particular section of your answer and break it down.
I might have tried to convey the same ideas like this:
I hope that is helpful.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. I was hoping you would be the one to close the Lnlwedding.jpg deletion review, because you seem to actually take the time to carefully weigh both sides of the arguments and seem quite fair. I sensed that you were hesitant to close this one, but I suppose I am okay enough about that. I would, however, like your opinion, as a second opinion, on the closing of this review. And, if you will, also on its validity within the Supercouple article. As I stated to the closer of this review, Aervanath, I am simply not seeing how the votes for delete or endorse in either of the discussions are more valid than my arguments for keep and overturn. The Supercouple article right now simply does not convey the right essence any longer without an image of the supercouple who started the term (particularly of the point which the term was started, their groundbreaking wedding). I am not seeing why this image had to be deleted, while less important images within the article get to remain. In addition, there is the fact that the main reason this image was nominated for deletion was not even about its use in the Supercouple article (something I addressed and took care of).
If I want to upload this image again at a later date due to feeling that it is even more valid within whichever article I put it in, which may include the Supercouple article, will I be allowed to do that without getting into Wikipedia trouble? Or should I list this image at deletion review again at that later time? Flyer22 ( talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've occasionally closed uncontroversial DRVs but there is no way that I'd close a debate I'd participated in, sorry. Aervanath closes a lot of them. He is enormously experienced (far more so than I am), and I think it's unlikely that he's made a procedural mistake here.
On reviewing the DRV, I feel there was no consensus in the debate. At DRV, the default outcome for "No consensus" is "endorse the decision at XFD"; so I'm afraid that's pretty much the end of the line for challenging the deletion process.
I think it's a pity it worked out like that because I do have some sympathy for your argument.
I recommend not uploading this exact image again unless there is a consensus empowering you to do so, since that could be considered disruptive.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are in doubt, the right man to ask about image permissions is Stifle, because he is extremely knowledgeable about them. I hope that you feel able to speak to Stifle, even though he deleted your image in the first place; but if you are reluctant because of that or for any other reason, mention it on my talk page and I'll speak to him. (Even though Stifle and I often disagree about content, we do get on well with each other and I'm happy to do it.)— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you opened this to consensus. Is this still open for discussion, because I just "voted"? If it's not then I can remove my thoughts - whatever is appropriate. Ti-30X ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I feel that recreating this article at the moment is a very bad idea.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 ( talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I am starting up by cleaning up links. Let me know if you see any issues. Grandma Dottie ( talk) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis ( talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#New_Zealand_.E2.80.93_Pakistan_relations - I thought all on-wiki was fixable. If only Richard had just talked to me first, we wouldn't be in this mess. If this closes to endorse deletion, I can't very well undo it can I? Process over common sense dominates sometimes. Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We need a system to solve this, because a disruptive editor could create chaos by sneaking in another huge article-series like the X-Y relations one. I'm minded to suggest a mass-removal from the mainspace while good faith editors work on the material.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about merging Gapers block and rubbernecking and is there a need for an apostrophe? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments. Can you save this one? Bearian ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involed in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Transatlantic Studies. Drmies ( talk) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Following on from your excellent explanation at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_17#Hispanic_Commonweal, and another contributor's suggestion that there was an essay to be written about promotion of non-profit organisations on WP, you might be interested in editing WP:NOBLECAUSE. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ∞ |
your "comment" here appears to be a vote for keep but you have not marked it as such...I am correct? LibStar ( talk) 00:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
see this and the article. WHat should I do? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests#Thrikkunnathu_Seminary
-- ܠܝܓܘ Liju ലിജു לג"ו ( talk) 09:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Please don't do anything now. I've brought the matter to the attention of an administrator. I hope that they will decide to protect the page to prevent any further editing until there has been a full and proper discussion on the talk page.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 10:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
If you have any further difficulty in reaching a policy-based consensus, please notify me here and I will try to help you.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:34, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for coming out and participating in my Request for Adminship, which closed unsuccessfully at (48/8/6) based on my withdrawal. I withdrew because in my opinion I need to focus on problems with my content contributions before I can proceed with expanding my responsibilities. Overall I feel that the RfA has improved me as an editor and in turn some articles which in my eyes is successful. Thank you again for your support, I have yet to review your RfA, but am going to. Cheers and happy editing.-- kelapstick ( talk) 18:20, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
Just pinging you, in case you miss my follow up question. Sorry for the volume of them--they're questions I began collecting on my subpage because I'd begun thinking, "I want to ask them all at RFA", but I'd always forget. rootology ( C)( T) 23:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
I would be interested in category sorting, but I don't know the first thing about it or what it even is? Can you help me get started? Thanks. GandalftheWise : Talk Page 20:52, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
After you've installed Hotcat, when you look at the bottom of this page, you should be able to see a button that says:
If you go to an article, say, George W. Bush, you'll see that he fits into LOADS of categories. But an important one is Category:Living people. Every article that's a biography of a living person needs to be in this category; it's really important. So what you could do is, hunt down articles on people who're still alive, and with a couple of clicks, add them to Category:Living people.
Let me know if you get stuck!— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 21:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
I write to you because of your recent edit to WP:Too long; didn't read-- here
I'm told that I need help in improving my writing. Articles present no problem, but I don't do well enough in talk page venues. I know that this is a non-standard request. I urge you to construe it as just one step in a process of mitigating fundamental flaws in in the way I address issues like logical fallacies or unfounded complaints. Until this week, I theorized that my problems arose when I attempted persuasive writing rather than expository prose, but it's not that simple. An illustrative example of my writing is to be found at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.
Voting is underway at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty/Proposed decision.
Proposed ArbCom findings of fact included:
ArbCom remedies included:
When I initiated this ArbCom case, my intentions were quite limited, as explained best in my response to John Vandenberg here and as presented initially at WP:RfA/Tang Dynasty#Statement by Tenmei. However, the proposed decision's locus of dispute explains that "evidence in the case has expanded to include other disputes in which Tenmei has been involved."
Caspian blue and others have determined that I am Japanese, despite the fact that I have avoided self-labeling in terms of nationality, gender, marital status, etc. I gather that Caspian blue has endured a number of caustic disputes with anonymous contributors and sockpuppets; and many of these were seen to have originated in Japan. Caspian blue is Korean; and aggrieved complaints about perceived anti-Korean bias are commonplace, not only involving those like me with perceived or actual Japanese backgrounds.
As ipso facto "evidence" of my "long-term harassment", Caspian blue alleges here that in 2008 "Tenmei ... attacked my ethnicity and taunted my ancestors ...." Inexplicably, Caspian blue's 2008 complaint at WP:AN/IncidentArchive471#User:Tenmei's abusing AfD and personal attacks did not encompass this specific claim ... which I would have thought implies that it simply didn't happen.
This one example suggests complicated subtexts affecting a broad tranche of wiki-edits. A risk aversion strategy has thus far proven inadequate; and ArbCom is correct in anticipating future difficulties.
I'm guessing that this message to you is arguably the sort of gesture ArbCom wants from me. Perhaps you will construe it as an illustrative example of WP:TLDR.
If you are willing to discuss this off-wiki, I've activated the e-mail send/receive option in my user preferences.
Thank you for the time you invested in reading this. -- Tenmei ( talk) 23:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
This is a very complex request and it will take me time to read through what's happened and try to answer it in a sufficiently thorough way.
Please be patient for a little while as I do that, but rest assured that I am looking into it and I will answer soon.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi, Tenmei, again.
On reviewing your contributions, I don't think it will take you long. You're clearly rather intelligent, and I think all that's needed are tweaks, different habits of speech, and different tools for responding rather than anything major.
I have now begun to read the background to this matter. I am dismayed because a lot of it seems to be about things far beyond my expertise. I'm sorry to say that I have little knowledge of China, Korea, and Japan, and I am very aware it would be easy for me to give offence by accident. If I do, I did not mean to.
I want to say a few things about ArbCom, and then a few things about English.
Wikipedia's "dispute resolution" system doesn't resolve content disputes. That's not what it's for. It deals only with matters of conduct. Wikipedia does not have a system for resolving content disputes. This is the central fact about ArbCom.
Where an editor is in a content dispute, they will sometimes try to find ways to turn it into a conduct dispute, because once bad conduct on the other side's part has been shown, they will be sanctioned — and the content dispute is won by default. There are Wikipedians who are very good at using this system to their benefit.
It follows that when you are in a content dispute, it is essential to avoid giving the other side a chance to make it into a conduct dispute. This calls for extremely careful use of language, and I am pleased to see you have acted quite correctly by asking someone about it.
I want to say that personally, I am unwilling to edit any page concerned with an ArbCom dispute. I do not participate there. I have never done so and I hope I never will.
I hope this helps you, and I wish you the best of luck with your dispute.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:41, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the bonsai tree!
There's a lot about Wikipedia that's beyond everyone's grasp. I'm certain that even Jimbo Wales would be baffled by many of the things that happen here.
I'm going to take one particular section of your answer and break it down.
I might have tried to convey the same ideas like this:
I hope that is helpful.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 11:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, S Marshall. I was hoping you would be the one to close the Lnlwedding.jpg deletion review, because you seem to actually take the time to carefully weigh both sides of the arguments and seem quite fair. I sensed that you were hesitant to close this one, but I suppose I am okay enough about that. I would, however, like your opinion, as a second opinion, on the closing of this review. And, if you will, also on its validity within the Supercouple article. As I stated to the closer of this review, Aervanath, I am simply not seeing how the votes for delete or endorse in either of the discussions are more valid than my arguments for keep and overturn. The Supercouple article right now simply does not convey the right essence any longer without an image of the supercouple who started the term (particularly of the point which the term was started, their groundbreaking wedding). I am not seeing why this image had to be deleted, while less important images within the article get to remain. In addition, there is the fact that the main reason this image was nominated for deletion was not even about its use in the Supercouple article (something I addressed and took care of).
If I want to upload this image again at a later date due to feeling that it is even more valid within whichever article I put it in, which may include the Supercouple article, will I be allowed to do that without getting into Wikipedia trouble? Or should I list this image at deletion review again at that later time? Flyer22 ( talk) 23:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I've occasionally closed uncontroversial DRVs but there is no way that I'd close a debate I'd participated in, sorry. Aervanath closes a lot of them. He is enormously experienced (far more so than I am), and I think it's unlikely that he's made a procedural mistake here.
On reviewing the DRV, I feel there was no consensus in the debate. At DRV, the default outcome for "No consensus" is "endorse the decision at XFD"; so I'm afraid that's pretty much the end of the line for challenging the deletion process.
I think it's a pity it worked out like that because I do have some sympathy for your argument.
I recommend not uploading this exact image again unless there is a consensus empowering you to do so, since that could be considered disruptive.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
If you are in doubt, the right man to ask about image permissions is Stifle, because he is extremely knowledgeable about them. I hope that you feel able to speak to Stifle, even though he deleted your image in the first place; but if you are reluctant because of that or for any other reason, mention it on my talk page and I'll speak to him. (Even though Stifle and I often disagree about content, we do get on well with each other and I'm happy to do it.)— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 00:04, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
I've started a little infernal voting thing to get a clearer view of how people stand and if we've got consensus either way. Regards, Ironholds ( talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I noticed that you opened this to consensus. Is this still open for discussion, because I just "voted"? If it's not then I can remove my thoughts - whatever is appropriate. Ti-30X ( talk) 02:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I've recently tried to restore this page to a version which can be improved upon (a non-protected, non-disambiguation page) and I wondered if I could get your opinion about whether it is currently up to the quality which we expect of every Wikipedia article. I would appreciate your comments on the article at User:Cdogsimmons/Estonia–Luxembourg relations on the talk page there, and further improvements that would get it closer to inclusion status are always welcome. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm afraid I feel that recreating this article at the moment is a very bad idea.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 23:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
I have put the article as an FA please leave comments or suggestions if you can thanks! Bangali71 ( talk) 23:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. I am starting up by cleaning up links. Let me know if you see any issues. Grandma Dottie ( talk) 02:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis ( talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_6#New_Zealand_.E2.80.93_Pakistan_relations - I thought all on-wiki was fixable. If only Richard had just talked to me first, we wouldn't be in this mess. If this closes to endorse deletion, I can't very well undo it can I? Process over common sense dominates sometimes. Fritzpoll ( talk) 12:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
We need a system to solve this, because a disruptive editor could create chaos by sneaking in another huge article-series like the X-Y relations one. I'm minded to suggest a mass-removal from the mainspace while good faith editors work on the material.— S Marshall Talk/ Cont 15:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you think about merging Gapers block and rubbernecking and is there a need for an apostrophe? ChildofMidnight ( talk) 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
Please see my comments. Can you save this one? Bearian ( talk) 15:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Seeing as you have taken part in the conversation before I thought you should be notified of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greenfinger_(3rd_nomination). The previous decision seems to have been against consensus, which was more for redirect. I personally think the article should be deleted. This is not canvasing as I am informing all people involed in the previous discussions and nobody outside of the discussions. Polargeo ( talk) 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Journal of Transatlantic Studies. Drmies ( talk) 04:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Following on from your excellent explanation at Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009_June_17#Hispanic_Commonweal, and another contributor's suggestion that there was an essay to be written about promotion of non-profit organisations on WP, you might be interested in editing WP:NOBLECAUSE. Regards, Bencherlite Talk 17:31, 18 June 2009 (UTC)