![]() | 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. |
Moved stuff about 'Outside view' from main page.
This section is supposed to be for 'Outside views'. Looking at the contributions of SWTPC6800 and Fnagaton, they appear to me to be 'Inside' and the table posted by Greg shows them as two of nine involved editors. I could not find a definition of 'Outside' so I could be wrong. Lightmouse ( talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Sorry about the lack of actual diffs. Greg's made over 1000 edits to the talk page, more than any other editor, ever, and it's a profound amount of work to dig through the history and copy and paste each URL. I asked for technical help with this last night, but there doesn't seem to be a solution besides hours of manual labor. — Omegatron ( talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb makes a number of statements that I wish to respond to. In each of the following sub-sections, the header is Headbomb's statement and the text is my response. I have signed each of the 3 responses separately.
The edit war started on 17 April [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Omegatron’s first involvement, placing a disputed tag on the disputed section, was on 11 May. In what sense was it started by Omegatron? Omegatron later removed the disputed text once it had become clear there was no consensus for it, more than two weeks after the first attempt to do so. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
At least 5 different editors attempted to do just that, and one of them was Omegatron [10]. The others were
Jimp was accused of vandalism for doing so. The editors removing the disputed tag were
At one point, Thunderbird2 attempted to clarify which parts of the text were disputed [37] [38]. This is Greg_L's colourful response. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The vote referred to here (which ended 7:5, not 8:3) [1] was an attempt by Greg_L to gain consensus after the text was placed for the first time on MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
On 14 June, Greg_L left a message on my talk page accusing me of disruption. I have been advised to respond to it here, so I have reproduced it below, beneath my signature.
Greg_L refers to some recent edits of mine that he deems inappropriate and “
against consensus”. Here are the edits, complete with their edit summaries:
All of these edits are attempts to improve the respective articles, either by removing ambiguity or by correcting an error. Other editors may agree or disagree with me that they are improvements, but all are made in good faith and none are disruptive. What I do consider disruptive is to have threats of "disciplinary action" placed on my talk page. What is needed here is not more disruption, but less of it. The question is how that can be achieved, given the currently hostile atmosphere at WT:MOSNUM, and the rejection of two recent attempts ( 1st attempt; 2nd attempt) to discuss the prefix issue on that page. I wish I knew the answer to that question. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thunderbird2: These disruptive edits on computer-related articles, [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and [45] constitute violations of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Refusal to 'get the point' says the following that you should read:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.
Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where chaos would reign supreme if 1) editors didn’t follow the rules, and 2) there were no remedies for editors who refuse to follow the rules. Note also, the following from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing:
Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by a consensus.
Consider yourself warned. If you continue to be disruptive, disciplinary action may follow. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Greg L ( talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what gives Greg the idea that he can go about issuing these warnings. I got one from him in May. I don't believe Thunderbird2's intention was ever to be disruptive. I don't have a great deal of interest in the binary prefix debate but the use of IEC prefixes is one means of removing ambiguity. The removal of ambiguity is a good thing. It seems that this was Thunderbird's intention. Perhaps these prefixes are not the most appropriate way of removing the ambiguity on WP. What's needed is a bit of level-headed discussion to agree on what is. "Warnings" don't help. JIMp talk· cont 01:02, 16 June 2008 (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. |
Moved stuff about 'Outside view' from main page.
This section is supposed to be for 'Outside views'. Looking at the contributions of SWTPC6800 and Fnagaton, they appear to me to be 'Inside' and the table posted by Greg shows them as two of nine involved editors. I could not find a definition of 'Outside' so I could be wrong. Lightmouse ( talk) 07:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Users who endorse this summary:
Sorry about the lack of actual diffs. Greg's made over 1000 edits to the talk page, more than any other editor, ever, and it's a profound amount of work to dig through the history and copy and paste each URL. I asked for technical help with this last night, but there doesn't seem to be a solution besides hours of manual labor. — Omegatron ( talk) 00:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Headbomb makes a number of statements that I wish to respond to. In each of the following sub-sections, the header is Headbomb's statement and the text is my response. I have signed each of the 3 responses separately.
The edit war started on 17 April [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]. Omegatron’s first involvement, placing a disputed tag on the disputed section, was on 11 May. In what sense was it started by Omegatron? Omegatron later removed the disputed text once it had become clear there was no consensus for it, more than two weeks after the first attempt to do so. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
At least 5 different editors attempted to do just that, and one of them was Omegatron [10]. The others were
Jimp was accused of vandalism for doing so. The editors removing the disputed tag were
At one point, Thunderbird2 attempted to clarify which parts of the text were disputed [37] [38]. This is Greg_L's colourful response. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
The vote referred to here (which ended 7:5, not 8:3) [1] was an attempt by Greg_L to gain consensus after the text was placed for the first time on MOSNUM. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 17:29, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
On 14 June, Greg_L left a message on my talk page accusing me of disruption. I have been advised to respond to it here, so I have reproduced it below, beneath my signature.
Greg_L refers to some recent edits of mine that he deems inappropriate and “
against consensus”. Here are the edits, complete with their edit summaries:
All of these edits are attempts to improve the respective articles, either by removing ambiguity or by correcting an error. Other editors may agree or disagree with me that they are improvements, but all are made in good faith and none are disruptive. What I do consider disruptive is to have threats of "disciplinary action" placed on my talk page. What is needed here is not more disruption, but less of it. The question is how that can be achieved, given the currently hostile atmosphere at WT:MOSNUM, and the rejection of two recent attempts ( 1st attempt; 2nd attempt) to discuss the prefix issue on that page. I wish I knew the answer to that question. Thunderbird2 ( talk) 18:07, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Thunderbird2: These disruptive edits on computer-related articles, [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and [45] constitute violations of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point.
Refusal to 'get the point' says the following that you should read:
In some cases, editors have perpetuated disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or their own error. Often such editors are continuing to base future attacks and disruptive editing upon the erroneous statement to make a point.
Wikipedia is based upon collaborative good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point.
Note that it is the disruptive editing itself, not the mere holding of the opinion, that is the problem.
Wikipedia is a collaborative writing environment where chaos would reign supreme if 1) editors didn’t follow the rules, and 2) there were no remedies for editors who refuse to follow the rules. Note also, the following from Wikipedia:Disruptive editing:
Disruptive editors may seek to disguise their behavior as productive editing, yet distinctive traits separate them from productive editors. When discussion fails to resolve the problem and when an impartial consensus of editors from outside a disputed page agree (through requests for comment or similar means), further disruption should be liable to blocking at the administrators' noticeboard and may lead to more serious disciplinary action through the dispute resolution process. In extreme cases this could include a site ban, either though the arbitration committee or by a consensus.
Consider yourself warned. If you continue to be disruptive, disciplinary action may follow. Please discuss this at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Greg L ( talk) 18:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I would like to know what gives Greg the idea that he can go about issuing these warnings. I got one from him in May. I don't believe Thunderbird2's intention was ever to be disruptive. I don't have a great deal of interest in the binary prefix debate but the use of IEC prefixes is one means of removing ambiguity. The removal of ambiguity is a good thing. It seems that this was Thunderbird's intention. Perhaps these prefixes are not the most appropriate way of removing the ambiguity on WP. What's needed is a bit of level-headed discussion to agree on what is. "Warnings" don't help. JIMp talk· cont 01:02, 16 June 2008 (UTC)