→3RR: re |
Mark Miller (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 397: | Line 397: | ||
You just did 4 reverts on the OWS article. You should undo your last one or risk being blocked. In any case, this is edit warring. [[User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous]] ([[User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|talk]]) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
You just did 4 reverts on the OWS article. You should undo your last one or risk being blocked. In any case, this is edit warring. [[User:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous]] ([[User talk:The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous|talk]]) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
||
:I did two reverts, each of different edits. You, on the other hand, violated BRD by reverting my revert first. I'm tired of starting the D for you when you revert a revert. You're supposed to do that instead of reverting. So this time I reverted instead. Don't complain about other people's choices in how they deal with your poor editing practices. Fix yourself up and we'll talk. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small>''' 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</font> |
:I did two reverts, each of different edits. You, on the other hand, violated BRD by reverting my revert first. I'm tired of starting the D for you when you revert a revert. You're supposed to do that instead of reverting. So this time I reverted instead. Don't complain about other people's choices in how they deal with your poor editing practices. Fix yourself up and we'll talk. '''<font face="Century Gothic" style="text-shadow:1px 1px 3px #999;">[[User:Equazcion|<span style="color:#008;">Equazcion</span>]] <small>[[User talk:Equazcion|<sup>(<span style="color:#007BA7">talk</span>)</sup>]]</small>''' 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)</font> |
||
Warning. It does appear that you have made 4 reverts in a 24 hr period.--[[User:Amadscientist|Amadscientist]] ([[User talk:Amadscientist|talk]]) 01:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:02, 2 May 2012
solar and co
seen your work on the page, impressive efforts, sorry to mess the article a little, will do my best to improve--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- No need to apologize, you can mess with it :) I'm just making sure the article doesn't start sounding too sure of itself, when it's talking about a future technology. Equazcion (talk) 23:38, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)
Did I get a little overzealous?
I've always been loathe to edit the ecig article too heavily, but I looked at it recently and felt like it was filled with weasel words and the like and not encyclopedic enough. I noticed that you edited it a lot of it back. I don't do a lot of work on here, so I'm not the most qualified person to judge exactly what makes an article less encyclopedic. I just wanted to ask what your thoughts are and the reasoning on your changes so I can be more up to date on editorial policy and style guidelines. Did you change everything back that I edited? Or was it just some portions? Thanks. Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
- I hadn't looked at where the changes came from at the time, but I see now that you're the one who removed all the "often" and "some" speak from the intro, which I later returned. I believe I did revert the entire intro, though I don't think I touched the rest of the article, in case you made other changes there.
- You weren't overzealous, no need to apologize or anything, I'm not in charge of the article. It's just that qualifiers (some, often, mainly) are not always weasel words. In this case the ones present in the intro are necessary, since electronic cigarettes for example don't always deliver nicotine, are not always portable, sizes don't vary ONLY based on battery size, etc. So it's necessary (in my humble opinion) to add qualifiers that indicate we're saying what the case is generally, rather than across the board, as electronic cigarette designs are so prolific that no description could definitively encompass them all accurately.
- Aside from that, there were other changes that I felt lowered the quality of the writing and sometimes introduced grammatical errors. Aside from accuracy, articles also strive to be artistically written (for lack of a better word). Of course that's a subjective judgment and my opinion is no better than yours, so wording changes could be discussed on the article's talk page if you feel strongly that your changes are necessary. Equazcion (talk) 22:27, 8 Nov 2011 (UTC)
- That's a good point. I guess what I did was just try to completely sterilize everything. You're right that there should be some style to the articles. My brain just doesn't operate that way when I'm doing strict editing. I don't feel especially strongly enough to discuss it on the page itself. I just wanted some insight from someone with more experience than me.
- Though it's funny that we both edited it because we each thought that the quality of the article was lowered. Maybe I'll look at it again eventually with all of the above in mind. That particular article is one of those that I have on my watchlist that I always think in the back of my mind, "this could be much better somehow", but I haven't figured out how yet.Vnarfhuhwef (talk) 22:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
bct/ait
thanks for the info on bct/ait. my daughter left for jackson in oct, and came home for christmas exodus. she tried to explain, but this army mom(being a blonde, and easily confused)was thoroughly confused. your article helped me to understand just what she has and will go through. again, thank you so much----maribaltitas@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.232.246 (talk) 05:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I was hoping to shed some light on basic training for those going in. It seemed so needlessly mysterious, since everyone has the same basic experience. So you're very welcome, it's great to know the article helped a parent! Equazcion (talk) 05:56, 27 Jan 2012 (UTC)
Holography page - modification
I am proposing some relatively minor changes to the 'How holography works' pages, and would like your opinion - see talk:Holography page. Epzcaw (talk) 16:48, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry - should have made that clear. It is in the Section called 'Revamp'. I guess I should have added it at the bottom. This is what I said just to save you time:
- I think the 'How holography works' section needs a further few amendments.
- The requirements for a reference beam should be mentioned at the beginning
- It should be made clear that the complicated arrangement of multiple mirrors and beams-splitters is not necessary for making a hologram - a point made by 71.218.130.13 in the disucssion unded the heading 'Hologram Kit'.
- I have created a modified version at user:epzcaw and would welcome comments.
Epzcaw (talk) 11:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 10
Hi. When you recently edited Reactions to Occupy Wall Street, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Chinese and Indian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Feeling overwhelmed and need to take a break
Hello Equazcion, I would like to write a essay response to what you wrote to me on the ows talk page here where you said:
- How dynamic or static an article has been isn't really of consequence.1 Editors sometimes get excessively attached to articles, feel it's their "duty" to maintain them, and therefore think they need to serve as gatekeepers so as to lessen their burden in the future.2 Content doesn't need to be agreed upon beforehand -- the nature of a wiki is that we all edit the live content, rather than craft it on the talk page first.3 This is the case no matter how "dynamic" the article is.4 If you feel overwhelmed by how often it changes, take a break. But don't make up new rules.5
In the 2nd sentence, are you referring to me or Gandy (or someone else)? 완젬스 (talk) 10:29, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I was referring to Gandy, but also to your specific interpretation of Gandy's stance, where you said too much change "creates" too much work for her and "there has to be some sense of sanity". The only way frequent changes would create work for an editor is if that editor felt a little too responsible for an article's stability, and I feel it's improper to fend off bold edits so as to "lower their workload", so to speak. It's important to remember that even when someone cares about an article, they should also remain vigilante in being accepting of bold changes rather than developing a policeman-like attitude to keep the article "stable" or "sane". Equazcion (talk) 10:51, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Point taken, let's just focus on the 2nd sentence only, and let me say that through like-minded editors working alongside each other, a "pact" was implicitly enacted that no hijacking editor should cause 2 or more in-pact editors to devote >= 51% of their time working on stuff they would rather not work on. For example, amadscientist's merge proposal was a huge waste of time and if I spent 30 minutes getting wasted into pointless discussions to "fend off bold edits" and as a result only have 15 minutes to improve parts of the article I think needs attention, then 66% of my time was wasted.
This next example may not resonate with you, but I'll tell it anyway. Back when the article was so out of shape, there were literally easy grammar errors & nonsensical corrections which we were unable to work on, because every day there are "bold edits we must overturn through concensus" which became routinized and systematic.
Now here is my remedy to solve the problem: use the talk page any time we can stave off an edit war. Although there are some editors whose recalcitrance & staunch fervor in WP:BRD strikes me as possible mental illness, and some editors who argue the right to "edit freely" or whatever floats their boat, I can vouch for Gandy & myself personally as always fair communicators. Simply put, the way to resolve the problem is to reach consensus on the talk page.
To change topics, can I ask if sentence 3 is a straw man? (I personally do not find Gandy or myself ever advocating such an easily denounced argument؟) 완젬스 (talk) 11:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- What you're advocating here, albeit in a more long-winded way, still constitutes the same problem. If an edit war starts merely because a new change was boldly implemented, that isn't a good reason to require a demonstrated consensus on the talk page. Reverts should occur if an editor feels the content shouldn't be there, rather than merely because they think someone might have a problem with it being there so it "should" be discussed first. With that in mind, no, my third sentence wasn't a strawman argument -- it is a restatement of what I feel you're advocating, which if you're doing it unintentionally, I feel needs to be pointed out. The talk page isn't for discussing every content addition; that's only necessary when there is actually controversial content to discuss. Equazcion (talk) 12:00, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- I see we're making some progress. If I made you feel that I'm advocating that, let me just flatly say I don't. With that said, I can see how my explanation seems like I'm sympathetic or in favor of what I've observed. But, that's all it is--just my post-hoc analysis--looking back and describing patterns that weren't specified a priori. It's my position that WP:Consensus trumps all rules, and can be used to make unpopular judgment calls on an article which attracts WP:Owners who Gandy & I have faced our fair share in the past. If I can be criticized as an editor, it's my Npov or Coi issues, not these issues. Let me also welcome you to the article, and I'm optimistic that we will be able to work together amicably, as you've been a great host to me on your talk page. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 12:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's stuff which could be chopped & cropped to the reaction article. It's 4 paragraphs now, and it should only be 2 paragraphs & contain a much better summary than it currently stands. However, I'm fine with NorthAmerica who reverted me and I'll let it stay for at least 1 week. The "zuccotti park occupation" section is 10 paragraphs, and way too long. Yesterday I did this edit but after two tries, I'll start trimming the article somewhere else. I'm much more in the "BRD crowd" than you give me credit for. ;-) 완젬스 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
What do you say let's tackle something together
Let's take on a project of your choosing on improving/shortening any of the various occupy articles. I'm game for it if you're feeling readiness to get some sweeping work done anywhere it's needed (at your choosing, ows related). 완젬스 (talk) 13:06, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I disagree with cutting down articles or sections just for the sake of making them shorter, so I can't help you there. If you have an idea for crafting a better summary (or article, section, etc) then great; ditto if you feel there are specific reasons particular content doesn't belong. I'm not sure where your two-paragraph suggested length comes from; craft the content first so that it constitutes a good summary, and whatever length it ends up being is fine. I see you're acclimated to thinking in terms of lengths and percentages, but quality of content should be the first concern. Equazcion (talk) 13:15, 10 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- Tell me a little bit about yourself as an editor. I have 3 main questions: What areas of the occupy wall street article need the most improvement? What other "occupy articles" do you want to improve the most this month? What does the occupy movement mean to you personally? Were you displaced from your home by mortgage or are you affected adversely by the economy (sorry if too personal, discretion is up to you.) Also, what is its message, in your opinion (and not necessarily supported by reliable sources) and how well does it resonate? Has the movement lost a lot of momentum to you personally? Thanks for our interactions today--I'm fascinated by your ability to not get upset at the article talk page while having a separate & unrelated discussion here, without letting the tension affect you here. You must be an INTJ personality, and my first impression is that you're in the upper quartile of editors I've experienced. You just leave me hoping that you're satisfactorily pro-OWS! 완젬스 (talk) 14:16, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
- I don't like to state my political leanings here, as it takes focus away from accuracy and opens the door for people to assess each other's edits in a less objective way. Adding a pro-OWS statement into the OWS article, for example, can take on new meaning when the editor has advertised themselves to be pro-OWS. Such things don't matter. I want to help make accurate and unbiased information available to anyone looking for it, while hopefully presenting it in a well-written way, and that's all anyone should be concerned with here as far as my motivations go.
Stratfor leaks
woops...caught it from dyk dint know a discussion took pace ;P(Lihaas (talk) 12:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)).
Five days into the protest, Keith Olbermann criticized the initial media response for failing to adequately cover the protests.[4][5] The protests began on Saturday, September 17. The following Wednesday, The New York Observer reported on the nascent protests in Zuccotti Park.[4][6] On Friday, September 23, Ginia Bellafante panned the movement in The New York Times.[7] Joanna Weiss of The Boston Globe found it difficult to take the protests seriously, criticizing Occupy Wall Street for its "circus" atmosphere."[8]
- It's already been covered on the media responses on the split page. To include Olbermann hoists his significance somehow. Can you tell me what you see as so significant? (he implies there was a media conspiracy not to cover the occupy movement, which was before there was any journalism stories to compare to)완젬스 (talk) 20:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Too many edit conflicts
Can I ask a simple question here? Are you for or against the chart: 완젬스 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
(because there are 2 issues--the chart & infobox being 1 of them, and the other being the paragraph which was re-added here) 완젬스 (talk) 22:35, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- No, you may not ask. I'm not interested in any of your requests for clarification on my personal opinions, as I attempted to tell you politely, and repeatedly, before. You would do well to argue points logically regardless of who makes them and whether or not they've demonstrated an allied status with you. Equazcion (talk) 22:40, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)see here there are 30 edits in 41 minutes. I am trying to prevent more confusion because two of your comments seem to be ambiguous if we're all on the same page here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- Can you only participate in a discussion if you first divide everyone into teams? What if I'm not for or against anything, but I want to discuss the merit of content with an open mind, hoping to arrive at an unbiased conclusion? You need to stop thinking in black & white. Equazcion (talk) 22:52, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- (ec)see here there are 30 edits in 41 minutes. I am trying to prevent more confusion because two of your comments seem to be ambiguous if we're all on the same page here. 완젬스 (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Understood, I just wanted to point out the two separate things. Sorry for the frustration today--I just want to make the article cleaner and I think from our earlier discussion here on your talk page, I'm a deletionist and want the article considerably shorter. I'm also reducing the number of occupy articles (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Occupy_movement_in_the_United_States#Occupy_Berkeley_merge_proposal_into_Occupy_Cal ) so don't misinterpret my desire to avoid further edit conflicts as me badgering you. I have had about 15 edit conflicts during those 30 minutes, and I just wanted to keep the discussion over there more clean & easy to follow, which is why I wanted to clarify what I thought was your misinterpretation of the two over-arching discussions between becritical and artist. 완젬스 (talk) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to avoid edit conflicts, I would suggest using your preview button more often, rather than adding afterthoughts onto your comments within minutes afterwards. Most of the edit conflicts I've had in discussions in which you were participating were due to that. Equazcion (talk) 22:56, 17 Mar 2012 (UTC)
rfc on rtne
- Regarding Template:rtne:
Hi Equazcion, I was wondering if you had feedback to offer on the rtne template, I noticed that you removed it, I wasn't sure if it was intentional or not, as your summary just said "header stuff" and re-organized a few things. I would very much like to know how you feel about it, as there has been little or no critique in regards to it's ongoing usage on many pages, and I would very much like some! Can't tailor it even better to do it's job without new ideas. Penyulap ☏ 06:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
- I removed it because the page was suffering from a very long list of header boxes, and something to aide finding info on a Russian news site seemed rather inappropriately specific, especially for an American topic. I'd suggest thinning out the template (cutting down the width of the icon will probably make the whole box thinner vertically), and/or providing a "small" parameter that optionally snugs it over to the right side of the page (like you can see in some other templates on that page). Still though, I'm not sure what the rationale is for pointing users to that site in particular for general sourcing, and would need some clarification there. Equazcion (talk) 11:05, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- I added two optional parameters to the template: "thin" and "small". I also clarified which site the template links to, as it wasn't clear what exactly "RT" was. Equazcion (talk) 12:08, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you Equazcion ! I badly need those ideas. I will implement them,(inserted: wait a second, I just notice you did!!) as well as pointing out somewhere, maybe on the template or a little 'read more' link, that the Russian state news service may provide a different perspective and / or a source of news for a topic which may be stifled by the domestic media outlets. I guess I need a wordsmith now, but for good ideas, thank you. OMG, I just noticed what you did to the template, thank you so very much! That is incredible. Such an improvement. Penyulap ☏ 13:47, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
Here is a 1 TB dose of programmers crack for you, to thank you for your help on the Rtne template. Penyulap ☏ |
- Glad I could help -- thanks for the crack, I can never have too much :) Equazcion (talk) 17:17, 20 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Miszabot
Hi. On Talk:Occupy Wall Street, you said
- (manually archiving some pretty old stuff, auto-archiver doesn't seem to be hitting this page lately, gonna check settings)
The problem isn't in the page(s) to be archived, but in the server that normally runs the archiving bot. See User talk:Misza13#Re: Bots down & stuff for more. Hopefully, sooner or later, it'll be back to normal.
—WWoods (talk) 01:28, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah I see, thanks for letting me know :) That had me pretty mystified. Equazcion (talk) 01:32, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
ContribsTabVector
Hi Equazcion, I started using your ContribsTabVector script, which looks very useful. Do you think it would be possible to make it project-independent, so that the script could be used in other Wikimedia projects as well? Currently if I import the script in another Wikipedia, the tab works but the link brings me to en.wikipedia's contributions page. Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 02:44, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Good idea. I just edited it to hopefully make it compatible with other Wikimedia projects, give it a try on yours and let me know. Equazcion (talk) 03:36, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Hi again! I decided to make a local copy anyway, because I wanted to include a link to the user's SUL contribs among other things. In any case as a FYI, there seemed to be a bug when using the script on Commons – it links to en.commons.org instead of commons.wikimedia.org. I parsed the values from wgServer
to get around this, dunno if there's an easier way to do it. Just wanted to let you know :) Regards, Jafeluv (talk) 10:46, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
- What did you ever need me for? ;) Nice work yo. SUL contribs is a good idea, maybe I'll add that to mine. Equazcion (talk) 10:59, 13 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Welcome back
(talk page stalker) Totally unrelated to this: Equazcion!!! Welcome back! I was looking for you when dealing with this back in January, but you were apparently on an extended wikibreak. The longest-lasting sock to date, but the same things gave her away: the stalking, mainly. Just FYI, since I know you two had quite a history ;> Cheers... Doc talk 03:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- Wow she's still kicking? Yeah every once in a while I kick the addiction but I appear to be back off the wagon again. Thanks for the welcome :) Equazcion (talk) 03:58, 22 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Keith Olbermann friendly jesting
You are right to revert my edit here since I was unable to shore up sufficient argument on the talk page. Discussions through "edit summary" are like passing notes in high school while the teacher is watching. Anyways, I have no urgency with regard to our respectful disagreement about whether there is merit to inclusion of the feistily debated newsbit. To me, it seems I have 3 ways of winning the argument:
- Convincing you to change your mind (offhand chance, but not betting my chickens on it)
- Daring you to feel "crisis" that the article is too long/detailed (but I don't know where to begin)
- Engaging you in back-alley talks, seeking to unify each of our mutual objectives (bingo!)
Let me thoughtfully entertain what you see as the merits of the Keith Olbermann "media blackout" tidbit into the parent OWS article. Please have patience with me as I'd really like to resolve this before mid-April. Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 07:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- It's one line, so you shouldn't bother looking for a place to begin with the article length one. As for entertaining the merits, I smell more proof coming that there was no media blackout, and if that's the case, you shouldn't bother; it's irrelevant, as I've tried to tell you. The allegations themselves are key and belong.
- The problem with your edit wasn't so much that you couldn't make a sufficient argument, but that you weren't even making an argument for a while there, and decided to revert nonetheless. The reason talk pages work to avoid edit warring is because the side that doesn't have their version in place takes it on faith that the other side won't stop talking just because their version is in place. You failed there -- you left the conversation for 3 days and chose to revert anyway -- doubly so since you were in the minority. It's BRD, not BRR. Equazcion (talk) 07:25, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
- I understand. I was wrong to revert you and I hope you accept my apologies. Here is my first "quick jab" (before I prepare you for my uppercut!) ready? Why is the Keith Olbermann tidbit included in the parent article yet not this tidbit about OWS costing the Bloomberg regime a cool 17 mill? (Obviously you can say "both are allowed" if you're ready to go down that route, which leads to inclusionist editors all getting their pork-barrel "pet edits" into an amalgamated article) but I won't predict your next move if you're willing to refrain from predicting my next move. So what say you--if I were to argue that this $17m tidbit, or a tidbit about antisemitism which we communally deleted a couple months back, or any other valid tidbit of information about the occupy movement--which policy should an editor look to when deciding whether or not a verifiable fact belongs on the parent article, or a leaf node or on both?
- Re: your point that I was making no argument--well just look and see if I'm back here again in full throttle. I have spent a good chunk of my time making various arguments on 3 different ows topics. Let's be the judge right now of whether or not I'm ready, willing, and able to make a more sound argument than you re/against the inclusion of the Keith Olbermann tidbit. I'll totally drop the "if there was no blackout" argument because you're not willing to let this one go. I'm ready to argue head-on whether or not this Keith Olbermann tidbit can hold up to the argumental prowess of my finest "A game" or if you can defend your one line, while rejecting my various tidbits of information simultaneously.
- If you want massive expansion of our various OWS articles, then take on an "everything's included" policy for not just your tidbits, but mine also: here I'm not saying I want an "everything under the sun" article about Occupy Wall Street, but I definitely don't want duplicate material repeated twice when it's both superfluous and redundant. I welcome either your claim that both your tidbit (but not mine) be included; or, that both our respective tidbits be included, or some other variant--I'll read over what reaction you have, if any, about my similarly "key, belonging" tidbit before I try to remove the Olbermann sentence. I very much want it removed, especially as it already appears on the branched article. Either way, this shall be a pleasant, learning experience for us both, and for me especially! Your move, Ivan Drago... 완젬스 (talk) 09:33, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It's one line. The full Reactions article has a paragraph. That's not a duplicate, it's a summary, as is appropriate.On second look the Reactions article actually only has the one line as well, but there's not much we can do to shorten that. It is nevertheless the first sentence of the media section in the full article, and I think that's for more reason than mere chronology. The possible blackout was prominent.
- You're still not presenting any argument for its removal other than duplication and "if we can't include the rest, then..." Well I'm not against adding material going in the other direction, so go for it -- as long as it makes sense in a summary of notable responses; though I'll note that stating the cost to the Bloomberg administration doesn't seem like a response. If there was a notable response that happens to mention the cost, then maybe. Add it or propose it on the talk page and let's see.
Fair enough, I have read twice what you said. You seem to be in favor of including pertinent facts about OWS which are verifiable & npov. That's perfectly within the rules and you'll find a myriad of policies and guidelines which are on your side in this issue. The problem with that approach is that in practice it leads to bloating of susceptible articles. I scanned a few random articles and found a parallel between the bloatedness of the OWS article and the bloatedness of Wavelength which is simply the length of one complete wave. I still don't know what to do for this lighthearted disagreement involving friendly jesting. I am partly inclined to take the Olbermann bit to WP:RSN because some of the other stuff he said in his speech was factually non-sequiter and even nonfactual. On the other hand (pardon my personal bias, I consult Occam's Razor to be far better in aiding my judgment than watching CurrentTV, no offense) I'm also eager to make the case for invoking WP:Fringe theories because while, if true, there was indeed a media blackout, you are equivocating in Wikipedia's voice that there is indeed a factual claim asserting an unexplained lack of coverage had occurred. Why not soften your words to more carefully convey that a particular source (or two/three whatever) claim that [...] there was some form of media blackout, rather than pass along this propaganda to our readers without reservation? Regardless of how insignificant you think this is, what about if I can find a source that says there is too much coverage? (which I can't, but I'm trying to elucidate the policy here) Why can't you agree to qualify/pre-condition the statement as follows:
Five days into the protest, political commentator Keith Olbermann of CurrentTV vocally criticized other mainstream media outlets for failing to adequately cover the Wall Street protests and demonstrations.
- or
Five days into the protest, political commentator Keith Olbermann from CurrentTV criticized the mainstream media's initial failure to adequately cover the protests.
By sticking some identifiers to the guy & linking him to CurrentTV, it more properly puts this information in a non-conspiracy context, which is what I'm after. If you read the sources closely, they're not aggrandizing the issue to some far-off witch hunt--they're merely pointing out that a shortage of coverage exists--nothing more & nothing less. A real "media blackout" is what they do in the Korean Central News Agency but maybe you're too American to have a world view about these things. I don't want to bring this discussion too far off topic, other than to say you have no true appreciation for what is actually a media blackout unless you have lived in China, Iran, North Korea, or Mississippi. I look forward to your reply. (and if by chance, one of these two sentences are good enough for you, then I can finally sleep good after having added those two minor modifications) Thanks, 완젬스 (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
break
You're making an unwarranted sort of legal argument here, essentially saying I'm setting a precedent for inclusion that you'll like to use later. Don't make any generalizations about what I think should be included in the future beyond what I've said explicitly. No, not everything NPOV and verifiable should be in that summary section. I said no such thing.
"Wikipedia's voice that there is indeed a factual claim asserting an unexplained lack of coverage" -- No. But, a claim that a lack of coverage was alleged? Yes. This is the difference you don't seem to be grasping. It's not fringe because we're not claiming that a reliable source is making a factual claim. We're pointing to a notable response. It was alleged that this blackout occurred, and that allegation was a prominent event. If you feel clarification is needed regarding that point, let's hear how you'd like to word it.
PS. You really don't have to continue this "we're jesting friendly but I'll take take this up with RSN if I have to" thing. Good to be civil, bad to be disingenuous. I find this transparent and annoying. You'll find I respond better if you say what you mean without the window dressing. Equazcion (talk) 11:12, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Edit: I hastily replied before seeing your question of why it couldn't be reworded, and your suggestions for rewording. I never said it couldn't be reworded -- you just never suggested it before, and kept removing it. They both look fine, I think I personally like the first more. Equazcion (talk) 11:19, 24 Mar 2012 (UTC)
Copyright violation
Thanks for your help with the Wikiproject Occupy PNG your recently created, however it is not properly attributed to the original CC 3.0 work with a similar license. If you would like to make these changes your contribution can be saved from deletion and be used on the project page. You must show the original file location to show that you did not originate the artwork yourself as well. Thanks.--Amadscientist (talk) 08:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Would you do the honors? I give you full permission to alter the licensing as you describe above. I'd do it myself but u no speeka english from my perspective. As an undergrad I skipped the Wikipedia image copyright paranoia class. File:Wikiproject OWS logo.png Equazcion (talk) 08:25, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- In other words...you can't just take an CC image and claim it as your own work. It is not needed, as the SVG file generates a PNG image as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I feel the image is needed because the SVG produces aliasing problems especially against background colors, whereas the PNG provides smoother transitions. In the summary I noted it was re-created based on your design, and included a link to your original. Tell me what else needs to be done to validate the license and I'll do it, or like I said, you can edit the summary directly. I'm bad with the copyright stuff. Equazcion (talk) 09:19, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- There are other ways to to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- Perhaps, but I chose this way, since my abilities lie more with PNG than SVG. If there's a way to fix the SVG to make it smoother I'm open to that as well. I'm not sure where your adversarial attitude is coming from. I'm fully willing to credit you for the design, as I've shown. There was no need to CSD tag. Equazcion (talk) 10:37, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- There are other ways to to that.--Amadscientist (talk) 10:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I feel the image is needed because the SVG produces aliasing problems especially against background colors, whereas the PNG provides smoother transitions. In the summary I noted it was re-created based on your design, and included a link to your original. Tell me what else needs to be done to validate the license and I'll do it, or like I said, you can edit the summary directly. I'm bad with the copyright stuff. Equazcion (talk) 09:19, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- In other words...you can't just take an CC image and claim it as your own work. It is not needed, as the SVG file generates a PNG image as well.--Amadscientist (talk) 09:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Since it was a CC 3.0, as long as you are not claiming the work to be your own (funny thing...you were. So I changed that) I can live with the file, however...simply replacing your version over the original at the project level is not acceptable. Join the project if you are so inclined and help gain consensus.--Amadscientist (talk) 11:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't intend to explicitly claim anything. I used the image upload wizard and left the text it placed. I'm glad you eventually chose to do what I suggested originally, albeit only after your CSD was rejected. So glad this worked out. Equazcion (talk) 11:13, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you keep uploading the same image to File:Wikiproject OWS logo.png? Please reply. You can edit the image description without uploading a new image. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm aware that a new image doesn't need to be uploaded when making summary edits. I've been fixing the image, sometimes subtley. The first version didn't have a transparent background. I deleted some more white from the background a couple of times, and finally changed the font in the sign. Equazcion (talk) 11:23, 6 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- True the last version did have a different size. Apologies for fussing. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
- Why do you keep uploading the same image to File:Wikiproject OWS logo.png? Please reply. You can edit the image description without uploading a new image. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 11:18, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
OWS economic section
What do you think about the claim that it is OR? And do you think there is any way to get the others to work with, instead of against? Their objections could be addressed were they willing to work with me instead of against, and if they heard others. There seems to also be an element of POV pushing over technicalities, ignoring the obvious correctness of the material (in that the economics are the background). Be——Critical 06:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's not OR. They're rehashing the same old discussion, invoking the claim that unless the sources mention a link between the stats and OWS, the section is POV. Articles use refs that don't mention their subjects all the time in order to support surrounding facts. There's nothing wrong with it, even if it could be incidentally construed as "supportive" of the movement.
- I don't have any particular suggestions for dealing with this, except to keep arguing the facts. It would be nice to get more people involved though; however that can be difficult when the talk page is getting too long and complicated with pasted content that makes people gag and keep away. If we can boil this down to an RFC with two very simple options, that would help -- not options for entire section drafts, but rather a summary of the two ideals being fought over. Equazcion (talk) 08:20, 10 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Let's not make our argument weak: the sources DO state a connection between OWS and the data. I carefully picked them to do so. Where the connection is slightly weak, there are other sources connecting. That is, source A connects, and source A also connects to B and C. In addition to that, there are other sources which could be brought in, given specific enough objections to text. Let's go through the DR process on this: they don't like that because they don't have the facts on their side, but it works even if it takes a long time. Be——Critical 13:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
- [1] Be——Critical 19:05, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Could you take a look at this? VegitaU is trying to edit war a bit on Antisemitism into the article over the objections of others, and I rather think abusing Twinkle also. Be——Critical 07:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Sorry for the long wait, didn't appear on my watchlist. Jasper Deng (talk) 02:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
TUSC token 215b603434aa7a7ab2bd5ff675948c7d
I am now proud owner of a TUSC account. Equazcion (talk) 18:16, 18 Apr 2012 (UTC)
What time are you going to sleep tonight? (to call a truce/ceasefire)
I am ready to retire for the day whenever you wish to agree to resume tomorrow. You've given me an exercise in Wikipedia diplomacy, but I hope you are as tired/exhausted as I am. (not that I can't drink another red bull & smoke a couple lucky strikes and go for round 2 of our friendly jesting) but the ball is in your court. I am Korean and single so I'm born functional to sit in front of a computer for several hours, as I've already shown so far. I just don't want to open another red bull because you might be drinking 5 hour energy and we're upping each other's blood caffeine levels unneccessarily. I've had 3 already today and have a headache, but I'm fighting it. If you want to retire in about 30 minutes, I can give you more friendly diplomacy on WP:ANI tomorrow. I've had more than enough for 1 session. 완젬스 (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- You seem to think this is a game. It's not. I've raised a concern that I feel is serious and hope it gets addressed. You've stated your defense in more-than-enough words. If anyone comments while you're asleep you'll be able to answer them tomorrow just as easily. Equazcion (talk) 00:15, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- This affects my physical and mental health. However stressful it is to you, multiply that x10 because you have nothing to lose and a lot to gain. The best I can come out of this is to keep my editing privileges. I have nothing to gain but a lot to lose. I won't sleep until I've observed your account dormant for a period exceeding a pre-determined number of minutes. If you want to retire early, then I'll give you the same courtesy while you sleep. We both know it will be instant straw-manning of each other's arguments if one of us goes to sleep while the other keeps posting. I'm trying to do us both a favor by telling you I'm the most sleepy right now. I'd like to sleep and ask what time you plan to cease editing Wikipedia (but I respect your privacy if you wish not to tell me). 완젬스 (talk) 00:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- (ec) I also would like this to be addressed--but can't we address it tomorrow rather than today? I have a headache, I'm sleepy, and I'm tired of WP:ANI. This is my 5th consecutive hour of f5'ing. 완젬스 (talk) 00:23, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
- Playing the victim won't get you anywhere in this matter, at least not with me. I don't have any particular plan for when I stop editing for the day, though I will note it's only 8pm here and tomorrow is Saturday, so as far as sleep goes, that's a ways off. Continually responding to every single comment is a mistake anyway and doesn't help your case (take it from a veteran editor). You've stated your defense, now let others weigh in. I won't be responding to every single comment either (ie. simple statements of agreement or disagreement with my recommendation) -- only if it seems something new has been brought up that requires addressing, or if more information is requested. Equazcion (talk) 00:37, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Bens dream
I noticed that you've had an altercation with Bens dream, as well. He did the exact same thing on the Dota 2 page, where he changed the infobox to "Defense of Allegiance", which seemed like vandalism, since not only does Dota 2 not represent an abbreviation, but that name doesn't have any correlation, so I sent him a warning. He responded poorly; he reverted it while calling me an idiot, he told me I'd pay for it if I ever talked to him again, (mind you, I don't know this person), and he made no less than three reverts in a matter of minutes, (not all against me). He apologized afterwards, but given him rash impulses, lack of knowledge regarding Wikipedia and general immaturity, I would guess that he's probably 12 to 13 years-old. Now, he's already been warned, so I don't want him to be confronted immediately, but I think we should watch this editor; make sure he doesn't persist with this poor behavior. DarthBotto talk•cont 04:59, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Hardly the same thing, he was quipping over language use with me (I actually took it as humor), while yours is an argument over facts.I left a talk page comment at that article after looking at the history. Hope it helps.I haven't looked into Ben's other contributions, but I'll try to offer advice in the future if you need. Good luck.Equazcion (talk) 05:50, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Okay I totally got this wrong. I didn't realize who he was, and which conflict you were referring to (I was originally responding about an ANI comment someone made to me with a similar name). Yes, I did have a similar altercation with him about a game article, and I'll keep an eye out. Sorry for the confusion. Equazcion (talk) 06:03, 21 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I shouldn't have called it vandalism what he was doing; I should have called it a good-faith edit. That was a bad call on my part. DarthBotto talk•cont 06:37, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Crit section
I was wondering if you want to insert this. It is the version which passed the RfC, but edited to break it up into several paragraphs, which were also consensus I think. Nice if you do it, then it would not be me inserting my own work.
Conservative criticism of OWS has sometimes been vitriolic, casting the demonstrators as a thoroughly marginal group. Andrew Hartman wrote in The Chronicle Review that "many conservatives and pundits view the Wall Street protesters as envious ingrates looking for government handouts because they fear responsibility."[9] Kate Zernike said in The New York Times that the Tea Party Patriots "portrayed Occupy protesters as freeloaders, or would-be freeloaders: 'Those occupying Wall Street and other cities, when they are intelligible, want less of what made America great and more of what is damaging to America: a bigger more powerful government to come in and take care of them so they don’t have to work like the rest of us who pay our bills.'"[10]
Brian Montopoli, writing for CBS News said that "The conservative criticism of the Occupy Wall Street movement is that it is a "growing mob" (House majority leader Eric Cantor) of "shiftless protestors" (The Tea Party Express) engaged in "class warfare" (GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain) whose grievances - whatever they are - are far outside the political mainstream."[11] Matthew Continetti, also writing for CBS, said that conservatives "dismiss the movement as a fringe collection of left tendencies, along with assorted homeless, mental cases, and petty criminals."[12] "Conservatives [have tried to] define the Occupy protesters before the protesters define themselves.
Ed Morrissey, writing in The Week, insisted that the Occupy movement wants “seizures and redistributions, which necessarily means more bureaucracies, higher spending, and many more opportunities for collusion between authorities and moneyed interests in one way or another."[13] Linda Colley said in The Guardian "A prime reason for [the diffidence between Democratic and Republican responses to OWS] is suggested by some of the Republican attacks on Occupy. The demonstrators were "mobs", said Eric Cantor, the House minority leader. Occupy was waging "class warfare", claimed Mitt Romney, an accusation some Republicans also level at Obama. But it was a rival of Romney for the Republican nomination, Herman Cain, who voiced the criticism Democrats and demonstrators here fear most. Occupy, and those backing it, according to Cain, are "anti-American"."[14]
Douglas Rushkoff, in a special to CNN said that "Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence."
On October 5, 2011, conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh told his listening audience: "When I was 10 years old I was more self-sufficient than this parade of human debris calling itself Occupy Wall Street."[15] Glenn Beck said on his internet television network GBTV, "Capitalists, if you think that you can play footsies with these people, you are wrong. They will come for you and drag you into the streets and kill you. They will do it. They’re not messing around."[16][17] Newt Gingrich, said "All the Occupy movements starts with the premise that we all owe them everything. Now, that is a pretty good symptom of how much the left has collapsed as a moral system in this country and why you need to reassert something as simple as saying to them, go get a job right after you take a bath."[18][19][20][21] Rick Santorum also told the protesters to get jobs.[22]
Be——Critical 22:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Some questions: How would that jive with the existing responses section? There are already some criticisms there. Would this be a sub-section of it? Also this seems likely to become a dumping ground for any critical opinion piece people can find. Equazcion (talk) 22:58, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Then again if there was consensus at the RFC I don't need to start questioning it. Though I'm concerned about making another big edit myself. I think if the RFc showed good consensus you can do it, it shouldn't matter that it was your own work. People do expect editors to submit their own work... Equazcion (talk) 23:00, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Alright I'm doin it. Feel free to play with the placement. Equazcion (talk) 23:15, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Don't do it if you're not comfortable with it. I can do it (: Be——Critical 23:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's no big deal, after thinking it over. Plus I haven't edited much at the Reactions article anyway. I had confused it with the main OWS article, I thought the section was being proposed for that one, for some reason. Anyway it's done now. Equazcion (talk) 23:30, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Cool (: I put back in the rest of the section... I don't think there was any discussion of removal, just that the new material should be included. And the old material covers some different stuff. Be——Critical 23:40, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- It's no big deal, after thinking it over. Plus I haven't edited much at the Reactions article anyway. I had confused it with the main OWS article, I thought the section was being proposed for that one, for some reason. Anyway it's done now. Equazcion (talk) 23:30, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Don't do it if you're not comfortable with it. I can do it (: Be——Critical 23:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
- Alright I'm doin it. Feel free to play with the placement. Equazcion (talk) 23:15, 23 Apr 2012 (UTC)
I'm a bit out of my depth on tinkering here, there is a fair bit of code I'm not entirely familiar with, help ? Penyulap ☏ 06:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Looks like the code was okay, but {{top icon}} is set to disable outside template/user space. You created this in Wikipedia space. I move it to Template:The grumpy award and it seems to display now. Only I'm not quite sure what you intended it to link to -- right now it goes to User talk:The grumpy award. If you let me know where you wanted it to go I can try and fix that. Equazcion (talk) 06:12, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Okay it's fixed now. Everything was okay except for a % where a : should have been, and your Template:Grump/preload didn't exist. I put test text there now so you can see it works. Equazcion (talk) 06:19, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- If you want Template:Grump to preload instead, just remove the /preload at the end of the wikilink field. Equazcion (talk) 06:21, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I am trying to make a less fishy kind of trout, so I copied most of the code and adapted it straight from there, but can't see where the 'big fish' image is, I can't find the code to display the full size anime of the Grumpy award by searching for, (fishing for) the trout. Penyulap ☏
- Okay, {{The grumpy award}} is now the actual award (seems more appropriate that way), while {{Grump}} places the top icon. The top icon's link starts a section at the user's talk page and places the contents of {{The grumpy award/preload}} in it, which is {{The grumpy award}}. I think it works as you intended now. Thanks for the squirrel :) Equazcion (talk) 06:58, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I gave you one peanut, you're meant to be the squirrel :) and don't eat it all at once or you'll choke ! Thank you Equazcion, I can do docs and things, it was the wrestling in code that I couldn't do without your help. I changed my trout to grump, it's less of a ikky contact sport sort of thing when I thought about it. I will have to clean up the anime (brushmarks and transparency stuff) if people think it's a good alternative. Penyulap ☏ 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay, {{The grumpy award}} is now the actual award (seems more appropriate that way), while {{Grump}} places the top icon. The top icon's link starts a section at the user's talk page and places the contents of {{The grumpy award/preload}} in it, which is {{The grumpy award}}. I think it works as you intended now. Thanks for the squirrel :) Equazcion (talk) 06:58, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I am trying to make a less fishy kind of trout, so I copied most of the code and adapted it straight from there, but can't see where the 'big fish' image is, I can't find the code to display the full size anime of the Grumpy award by searching for, (fishing for) the trout. Penyulap ☏
Income inequality
The text they're talking about is "Income inequality, defined as a wealthy upper class with economic stagnation or impoverishment for the rest of the population, has increased greatly since the 1960s."link The text in the source seems to me to be related well enough to OWS, but there are other sources for nearly the same info, and anyway, no one even disputes that it's right. Even AKA. The quote from the source:
In an article in the second issue of the Occupy Wall Street Journal entitled “What Liberty Square Means: The Progress of Revolutions,” Rebecca Manski joins the debate from Zuccotti Park, renamed Liberty Square. Manski argues:
Liberty Square is the twenty-first century Liberty Tree. If you want to understand what is happening there, imagine: Under the Liberty Tree that stood in Boston Common, early in the first American Revolution, any and all could come to air their grievances and hammer out solutions collectively, and it was there the promise of American democracy first took root. We are reclaiming a democratic practice in Liberty Square.
Since 2008, national unemployment rates have remained above 9% with much higher rates for African Americans and youth—16% and 24.6% respectively. An estimated 10.4 million mortgages could default this year. Income inequality, with concentrated wealth at the top and flat incomes or impoverishment for the vast majority of the country’s population, has increased precipitously since the 1960s. The well known facts are worth reciting again: the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.
The "liberty square" is a direct reference to OWS. Be——Critical 20:07, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused though still.
- Is this from the opinion piece AKA referred to? I could be dense but it doesn't seem apparent from the site whether or not it is.
- Are there non-opinion pieces we could use instead for this, that also connect to OWS (not that I agree this should be a requirement, but just to avoid having to argue it altogether)?
- Failing that, is there at least a non-opinion piece that states the inequality increase?
- Perhaps we can change that lead sentence into something that restates the inequality increase in a way that can be referenced as AKA/Amadsci demand. Equazcion (talk) 20:19, 24 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Non opinion pieces? I don't know, that is pretty hard to get for this article. But more sources? Sure:
The Occupy movement has, according to recent polling, significantly more general support than the Tea Party, and its specific demands are highly popular. Huge majorities agree that corporate special interests have too much clout in Washington, that inequality has gotten out of control, that taxes can and should be raised on the successful, that the gamblers of Wall Street deserve some direct comeuppance for the wreckage they have bestowed on the rest of us. Polling data do not show a salient cultural split between blue-collar whites and the countercultural drum circles in dozens of cities around America. And the facts are behind the majority position. Social and economic inequality is higher than it has been since the 1920s, and is showing no signs of declining.
Sure, multinational corporations have rescued millions from poverty in the developing world in the last decade. But they have also outsourced more and more blue- and white-collar jobs away from the West, pioneered technological innovation that has made entire professions—remember travel agents? librarians? secretaries?—redundant, and rewarded the brilliant and driven at the expense of the middle class and the job security it once enjoyed. Even great Western products like the iPhone now actually employ more Chinese than Americans in their manufacturing. People rightly wonder how they can ever master these powerful forces again. And, yes, the income numbers are staggering by any measure. From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the median American household saw its income double. Since then: a screeching halt, or barely a 5 percent rise in incomes for the less-affluent 90 percent of Americans. But between 1979 and 2007, the top 1 percent saw their incomes soar by 281 percent. Add to that the collapse in home values, and soaring costs for health insurance and college, and it becomes remarkable that we haven’t seen much more unrest. I believe the man who posted the following statement online: “I work 3 jobs. None which provide health insurance. My son is on Medicaid. We are on W.I.C. We’re 1 paycheck from disaster. I am the 99 percent.” Do we not all know someone like him?[2]
Occupy Wall Street and its coast-to-coast spinoffs captured the headlines in 2011, but the economic debate it helped trigger should reverberate deep into 2012.
That's the debate over the future of the American middle class....
There isn't any question that income inequality has increased over the last three decades or so, despite a conservative campaign to discredit the notion. A straightforward description of the trend was issued in October by the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office, which determined that for the highest-income 1% of the population, average after-tax household income almost quadrupled from 1979 to 2007, while income for the 60% of Americans in the middle of the scale grew by just over one-third. (Both figures are adjusted for inflation; in 2007, that middle group comprised households with earnings between about $15,000 and $70,000.) As a consequence of this trend, the CBO says, the share of after-tax household income collected by the top 20% of income earners grew to 53% in 2007 from 43% in 1979. Everyone else fell....
And ends the article with:
One message of the Occupy movement is that the trend to deliver wealth to those at the top of the economic pyramid undervalues the contributions made by everyone else. This is not merely an important cause of our economic malaise, but a moral and political failing too. [3]
And:
Occupy Wall Street is not known for the precision of its economic analysis, but new research on income distribution in the United States shows that the group’s sloganeering provides a stunningly accurate picture of the economy. In 2010, according to a study published this month by University of California economist Emmanuel Saez, 93 percent of income growth went to the wealthiest 1 percent of American households, while everyone else divvied up the 7 percent that was left over. Put another way: The most fundamental characteristic of the U.S. economy today is the divide between the 1 percent and the 99 percent.
It was not ever thus. In the recovery that followed the downturn of the early 1990s, the wealthiest 1 percent captured 45 percent of the nation’s income growth. In the recovery that followed the dot-com bust 10 years ago, Saez noted, 65 percent of the income growth went to the top 1 percent. This time around, it’s reached 93 percent — a level so high it shakes the foundations of the entire American project....
Finally, as Saez points out, there has been “an explosion of top wages and salaries” since 1970. In that year, 5.1 percent of all wages and salaries paid in the United States went to the wealthiest 1 percent. In 2007, the share going to the wealthiest 1 percent had more than doubled, to 12.4 percent.[4]
Be——Critical 21:14, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
DRN Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Occupy Wall Street". Thank you. --Amadscientist (talk) 06:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Just so you know...
- The users that opposed the topic ban here were basically the users that opposed me in the AfDs (User:Tarc, User:SmokeyJoe). I was trying to get some outside input on the situation. Basically, the way I see it is, User:Hipocrite seemed to be mad that I placed the warning template on his/her talk page, so then s/he resorted to, "Let's see if I can delete his articles without him knowing." (I know about WP:OWN, but still.) All in all, I didn't start the discussion in bad faith. Erpert Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 16:40, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
- Your statement here does clarify your concern a bit more, and I can see why you might've been peeved enough to go to ANI with it.
- Taking a look at the warning you placed that you believe precipitated this [5], I don't think that quite qualified as an attempt outside ANI to work things out with Hipocrite. Templating someone for "disruptive editing" based on AfD rationale you don't agree with isn't cool. Not that he was justified in nominating your articles for deletion as some kind of revenge, if that's what he was doing... but, there were better ways to go about raising that concern.
- At any rate, I didn't close the discussion because of the accusation that it was started in bad faith, but because all the issues seemed to have been settled (as I said in the closing statement). I actually don't think you started it in bad faith at all (now or before you came here). The discussion had then veered away from the issues you brought, and had begun escalating into an argument about what AfD notification policy should be.
- Unfortunately, if your suspicions about Hipocrite's intentions are accurate, there's not much that can be done to satiate your desire to have him get what he deserves. On Wikipedia, you're allowed to do bad stuff once, as long as you promise not to again afterwards. At least you now have it on record that this behavior was discussed, in case you need to show a pattern in the future.
- I will leave Hipocrite a note about this, though, also for further record (though I'm sure he'll revert it). Equazcion (talk) 17:44, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Done here. Equazcion (talk) 17:55, 26 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Unique page anchors - continued from VPP
It appears the thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Unique page anchors is dying down. Are you willing to consider some more ideas here on your talk page? EdJohnston (talk) 03:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Sure, here is good. Equazcion (talk) 03:42, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- Looking at WP:DRN, I see that they have some repeating headers which are not unique. For example, 'Dispute overview' is repeated for each dispute. But for the discussion section, you have 'XXX discussion', where XXX changes for each one. It is reasonable you might want to give out section links to the Discussion section. It does not seem very likely that 'Dispute overview' would be linked to very often (it is close to the top of the page) so disambiguating those headers doesn't look to be a high priority. If unique page anchors were possible, how would you propose to use them at WP:DRN? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- You know, it looks like you're right about the DRN example. I was involved in something there recently where anchor links kept sending me to the wrong section, but going back there now I can't see why (even looking at old revisions). In any event, you're right that this can be dealt with pretty easily in the majority of cases (by tweaking templates or changing a header name), but those occasional instances where it becomes a difficult issue still suck.
- Looking at WP:DRN, I see that they have some repeating headers which are not unique. For example, 'Dispute overview' is repeated for each dispute. But for the discussion section, you have 'XXX discussion', where XXX changes for each one. It is reasonable you might want to give out section links to the Discussion section. It does not seem very likely that 'Dispute overview' would be linked to very often (it is close to the top of the page) so disambiguating those headers doesn't look to be a high priority. If unique page anchors were possible, how would you propose to use them at WP:DRN? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 01:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
- There was a recent ArbCom RFC where I had to deal with this, I think it was Images of Muhammad, where I took it upon myself to distinguish the sections after it became too annoying. I added things like "1", "1a", "2", etc. to the myriad of "Support", "Oppose", "Discussion" sections (though if that's the discussion I'm thinking of, it looks like others have since edited many of them) -- and this wasn't easy to do with all the rapid editing on such a page. There's also the use of "break" headers in different sections of ANI and the like.
- In the end it's just something that is decidedly an unreliable feature, it's just so easy to break, and it should be fixed across the board. The anchor IDs are made unique specifically to avoid this problem, and yet we don't use them, so we still have the problem. Seems pretty silly to me.
As it stands, there has been no determination if the account you are reverting is in fact a sock or not. And while it has been blocked for disruption, your use of rollback in this specific situation appears to fall outside of policy. Please consider using a tool (or the undo button) that allows you to make informative edit summaries. Also, note that you yourself have now violated WP:3RR. Tiptoety talk 04:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- I didn't see this as anything but a clearcut case of a banned user returning as a sock. The account was created and immediately headed to Occupy Wall Street to make the same sort of edits he did, using the same language he did. I think anyone familiar with CentristFiasco's behavior would make the same determination. Have you run checkuser? In any event, I'll take this under advisement for the future. Equazcion (talk) 04:04, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I have. There is nothing of interest. Tiptoety talk 04:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Okay. If the eventual conclusion is that I was wrong and this user isn't a sock, the block should probably be reduced to a 48-hour and I'll take the same for good measure. We would've both been edit warring and over 3RR, so it doesn't seem fair otherwise (I'm an experienced user and should've known better, so I'm even more guilty). Though I'm wholly certain this is a sock, and only about .01% less sure it's CentristFiasco's sock. I would not have used rollback or reverted this many times if I wasn't. Equazcion (talk) 04:15, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I have. There is nothing of interest. Tiptoety talk 04:06, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
←FYI: [6]. Tiptoety talk 04:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice to see...
... that you are still around. Every time I see a jerk in WP, I sigh and think ... "well, at least there are editors like Equazcion out there". But not enough of them. --Noleander (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
- Hehe thanks that's nice to hear. I was away for a while there, but couldn't get used to the lack of abuse. Glad to see you're still around too. Equazcion (talk) 17:06, 27 Apr 2012 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
The Technical Barnstar | |
I wanted to formally thank you for creating the CatListMainTalkLinks script I requested. It is a great improvement over the old category view. Kumioko (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC) |
- Thanks! Much appreciated. Good to know you're finding the script useful. I enjoyed making it, and learned more about jQuery and the MediaWiki API in the process (to make those damn red links :] ). Equazcion (talk) 05:44, 28 Apr 2012 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:J Street
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:J Street. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 07:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
?
What do you think we should do about the OWS article? I'm kind of tired of it at the moment, but I don't think the article should be the result of aggressive editing practices by AKA and MadSci. I made a new draft which I think is better than the one they blanked. I'm leaning toward formal mediation. What do you think? Be——Critical 18:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
- I'm pretty burned out on that myself. It's a shame but POV pushers just tend to want it more, and the system is inadvertently designed so those are the ones who get their way. Yeah, I said POV pushers. AKA predominately, with Amadsci more along for the ride, defending the other's moves in any way he can manage to grab hold of. I've attempted to keep the discussion on a more general level so the specifics can sort themselves out going forward, but the way the dispute has been going, it's more of a painstaking legal battle over the specifics of every single word, and that is just not what I'm at Wikipedia to deal with. It's also not even a long-term solution. Articles need to be able to change easily without that kind of ridiculous battle each time. If the discussion changes to the overarcing issue, I'll try to contribute. As it stands, I can't say what my involvement will be going forward, but if you start some process let me know. Equazcion (talk) 02:06, 30 Apr 2012 (UTC)
- I'm planning to start a mediation. I would expect AKA to not participate much, and MadSci will be forced to actually name his issues, which can either be accommodated or the mediator should see they are false. That should create a fuller basis for our case that it is disruption next time aggressive POV pushing happens. But of course you're right that it is systemic in WP, and takes a great deal of dedication which only ideologues usually have. Be——Critical 18:35, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
New messages
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
3RR
You just did 4 reverts on the OWS article. You should undo your last one or risk being blocked. In any case, this is edit warring. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- I did two reverts, each of different edits. You, on the other hand, violated BRD by reverting my revert first. I'm tired of starting the D for you when you revert a revert. You're supposed to do that instead of reverting. So this time I reverted instead. Don't complain about other people's choices in how they deal with your poor editing practices. Fix yourself up and we'll talk. Equazcion (talk) 00:27, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Warning. It does appear that you have made 4 reverts in a 24 hr period.--Amadscientist (talk) 01:02, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
- ^ Grant, Drew Grant; Sanders, Anna (September 30, 2011). "Media Coverage: Must Reads." The New York Observer. Accessed November 2011.
- ^ Goodale, Gloria (October 5, 2011). "'Occupy Wall Street': Why this revolution isn't made for TV." The Christian Science Monitor. Accessed November 2011.
- ^ Udstuen, Lukas; et al. (October 11, 2011.) "U.S. News: Occupy Wall Street Media Coverage." NewsNY. Accessed November 2011.
- ^ a b Stoeffel, Kat (September 26, 2011). "Occupy Wall Street's Media Problems". The New York Observer. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
- ^ "Will Bunch on mainstream media's failure to cover Occupy Wall Street protests". Countdown with Keith Olberann. current.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved September 22, 2011.
- ^ "The Wall Street Protesters: What the Hell Do They Want?". observer.com. September 21, 2011. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
- ^ Bellafante, Ginia (September 23, 2011). "Gunning For Wall Street, With Faulty Aim". The New York Times.
- ^ Weiss, Joanna (September 27, 2011). "The right way to get heard". The Boston Globe. Retrieved October 6, 2011.
- ^ Occupy Wall Street: a New Culture War? The Chronicle Review November 12, 2011 By Andrew Hartman
- ^ Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says by Kate Zernike in The New York Times October 21, 2011
- ^ Occupy Wall Street: More popular than you think By Brian Montopoli October 13, 2011
- ^ The roots of American disorder By Matthew Continetti, CBS news November 22, 2011
- ^ Wall St. Protest Isn’t Like Ours, Tea Party Says The New York Times. Accessed: 21 March 2012.
- ^ Why Britain needs a written constitution By Linda Colley in The Guardian, Friday 4 November 2011
- ^ Rush Limbaugh Flips Out, ‘The Next President Could Come From (Occupy Wall St)’PoliticsUSA retrieved Monday, March 12, 2012
- ^ 'The Rachel Maddow Show' for Monday, October 10th, 2011 Retrieved Tuesday, March 20, 2012
- ^ Glenn Beck: Protestors ‘Will Come For You, Drag You Into The Streets, And Kill You’ By by Jon Bershad
- ^ Gingrich Takes GOP Lead, Takes On 'Occupy' National Public Radio transcript November 21, 2011
- ^ Religion on display in Republican debate by Anna Fifield in the Financial Times, November 20, 2011
- ^ Gingrich to Occupy: ‘Take a Bath’ The Daily Beast November 21, 2011
- ^ Populist Movements Rooted in Same Soil The Wall Street Journal By GERALD F. SEIB, NOVEMBER 15, 2011 "You know how they have been pigeonholed: The tea-party movement is nothing but a collection of right-wing, under-educated rubes and radicals, while the Occupy Wall Street movement attracts only young, scruffy, unemployed left-wing zealots."
- ^ Occupy Wall St. disrupts Okla. Santorum rally By Rebecca Kaplan CBS News March 4, 2012