Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Pwn |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | [IdioT.SavanT.i4] |
Parties involved | [IdioT.SavanT.i4], [Onorem] (with a previous revertion by coneslayer) |
Mediator(s) | Squadnleedah |
Comment | Closed |
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
I'm tired of this reversion game. I would like a neutral third party to read the discussion on the talk page near the bottom, then check my sourcing for accuracy.
My argument is simple. Pwned! and OWNED! have taken a new usage - different from the one gamers have for it - on debate forums. As such, I felt it deserved inclusion because, as in a dictionary, words can have alternate meanings. The use of Pwned! has taken on a different meaning in the context of heirarchial value. For gamers, Pwned is the supreme value, for debate, pwned! is the diminuative and OWNED! has become the superlative case.
Onorem has decided the support linkage I provided is not "valid". Unfortunately, with neologisms, there ARE no sources, or very few. In this case, Pwn has no historical literature or published research supporting it at all. How can it? It's a made up typo in the first place, the very definition of a neologism, in fact, the whole page is ABOUT a neologism and nothing more. The entire article is full of "citations needed" & references to "So & So Said" commentary, yet none of that stuff was taken out. Why was mine?
While I have verifiable sourcing, the main article has little/none or only supposition as a basis. To contend neologisms are not allowed as documentaton for a neologism strikes me as particularly ironic but Onorem apparently doesn't see the humor in that.
My interest was in making Wiki comprehensive, not some sort of turf war. MY problem is with editors who arbitrarily decide their opinion is the only one that matters and wholesale slaughter other people's contributions with no attempt at some sort of middle ground. I would have been happy to work on a suggested reworking to fit the Debate usage in somehow, even as a small addition, (and mine wasn't all that lengthy), but neither coneslayer nor Onorem made any attempt at compromise, nor even felt it was worth a discussion. It was their way or the highway. THAT struck me as particularly UN-Wikipedian and possessory. Wikipedia is NOT their personal playground. The fact their reversions were so fast appears to illustrate they are treating the Pwn page as personal property. I question the motives of anyone who so jealously guards an article.
But, if one of the mediators wishes to privately contact me, I check my email at IdioT.SavanT.i4@gmail.com weekly.
I would also request a mediator look at the character of the disputants, and their work on Wiki as well. Onorem seems to have engendered more than a little hostility around the place. I believe my own actions have been pretty well intentioned and can't remember ever acting so irresponsibly on someone else's contribution. I believe actions speak louder than words, and mine have been very civil toward other editors - which is why I'm here, instead of there, in a reversion war.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Onorem, if someone other than the usual list of editors wants to add something to the page, they have every right
Onorem, please include other editors in the editing of the page if that is their wish.
I won't create a new page either, that would be compounding the absurdity. Imagine Wikipedia devoting 2 pages to this damnable word. LOL
I never meant to imply one person was responsible for all the reversions, but my comments on the totality of the people doing the reversions acting in concert as a group of gamers, excluding any other usage of the term, still strikes me as a form of concerted "ownership". As such it seems to violate the very idea of the Wikipedia as I understand it, to improve upon the state of human knowledge, not to limit it. By excluding my addition, the editors have done precisely that.
I would hope, after a proper reflection, they mght see the collective wisdom in including a small mention of an alternative use but, as I said earlier, I'm done with it.
Onorem, antivandalism is a commendable thing, I have found and seen to it that some was taken care of here as well. For that I applaud your efforts. We will have to agree to disagree on this particular item I guess.
Moderator Squad'nLeedah, thank you for your time. i4 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, i got a bit caught up with some uni work. Thanks all for your input, it looks like you guys have worked things out. I hope everything is now sorted, and everyone gets what they want. Feel free to come back again sometime! Case is closed! Squad'nLeedah 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Article | Pwn |
Status | closed |
Request date | Unknown |
Requesting party | [IdioT.SavanT.i4] |
Parties involved | [IdioT.SavanT.i4], [Onorem] (with a previous revertion by coneslayer) |
Mediator(s) | Squadnleedah |
Comment | Closed |
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.
I'm tired of this reversion game. I would like a neutral third party to read the discussion on the talk page near the bottom, then check my sourcing for accuracy.
My argument is simple. Pwned! and OWNED! have taken a new usage - different from the one gamers have for it - on debate forums. As such, I felt it deserved inclusion because, as in a dictionary, words can have alternate meanings. The use of Pwned! has taken on a different meaning in the context of heirarchial value. For gamers, Pwned is the supreme value, for debate, pwned! is the diminuative and OWNED! has become the superlative case.
Onorem has decided the support linkage I provided is not "valid". Unfortunately, with neologisms, there ARE no sources, or very few. In this case, Pwn has no historical literature or published research supporting it at all. How can it? It's a made up typo in the first place, the very definition of a neologism, in fact, the whole page is ABOUT a neologism and nothing more. The entire article is full of "citations needed" & references to "So & So Said" commentary, yet none of that stuff was taken out. Why was mine?
While I have verifiable sourcing, the main article has little/none or only supposition as a basis. To contend neologisms are not allowed as documentaton for a neologism strikes me as particularly ironic but Onorem apparently doesn't see the humor in that.
My interest was in making Wiki comprehensive, not some sort of turf war. MY problem is with editors who arbitrarily decide their opinion is the only one that matters and wholesale slaughter other people's contributions with no attempt at some sort of middle ground. I would have been happy to work on a suggested reworking to fit the Debate usage in somehow, even as a small addition, (and mine wasn't all that lengthy), but neither coneslayer nor Onorem made any attempt at compromise, nor even felt it was worth a discussion. It was their way or the highway. THAT struck me as particularly UN-Wikipedian and possessory. Wikipedia is NOT their personal playground. The fact their reversions were so fast appears to illustrate they are treating the Pwn page as personal property. I question the motives of anyone who so jealously guards an article.
But, if one of the mediators wishes to privately contact me, I check my email at IdioT.SavanT.i4@gmail.com weekly.
I would also request a mediator look at the character of the disputants, and their work on Wiki as well. Onorem seems to have engendered more than a little hostility around the place. I believe my own actions have been pretty well intentioned and can't remember ever acting so irresponsibly on someone else's contribution. I believe actions speak louder than words, and mine have been very civil toward other editors - which is why I'm here, instead of there, in a reversion war.
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
Onorem, if someone other than the usual list of editors wants to add something to the page, they have every right
Onorem, please include other editors in the editing of the page if that is their wish.
I won't create a new page either, that would be compounding the absurdity. Imagine Wikipedia devoting 2 pages to this damnable word. LOL
I never meant to imply one person was responsible for all the reversions, but my comments on the totality of the people doing the reversions acting in concert as a group of gamers, excluding any other usage of the term, still strikes me as a form of concerted "ownership". As such it seems to violate the very idea of the Wikipedia as I understand it, to improve upon the state of human knowledge, not to limit it. By excluding my addition, the editors have done precisely that.
I would hope, after a proper reflection, they mght see the collective wisdom in including a small mention of an alternative use but, as I said earlier, I'm done with it.
Onorem, antivandalism is a commendable thing, I have found and seen to it that some was taken care of here as well. For that I applaud your efforts. We will have to agree to disagree on this particular item I guess.
Moderator Squad'nLeedah, thank you for your time. i4 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, i got a bit caught up with some uni work. Thanks all for your input, it looks like you guys have worked things out. I hope everything is now sorted, and everyone gets what they want. Feel free to come back again sometime! Case is closed! Squad'nLeedah 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)