→Two things: new section |
→Two things: reply |
||
Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
One, I wanted to ask you honestly why you are making such a big deal out of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Experienced&diff=next&oldid=597978058 this one source]. I have stood up for your sterling work in getting the article promoted, but you have to ask, would this have made a difference to the overall quality of the article? Two, I am warning all the editors involved in this edit war that any further reversions at all pending a proper talk page consensus one way or the other will lead to a block. This includes you. I know you've committed to 0RR for 48 hours, which is great; can you hold on until the talk page discussion is complete? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 23:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
One, I wanted to ask you honestly why you are making such a big deal out of [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Are_You_Experienced&diff=next&oldid=597978058 this one source]. I have stood up for your sterling work in getting the article promoted, but you have to ask, would this have made a difference to the overall quality of the article? Two, I am warning all the editors involved in this edit war that any further reversions at all pending a proper talk page consensus one way or the other will lead to a block. This includes you. I know you've committed to 0RR for 48 hours, which is great; can you hold on until the talk page discussion is complete? --[[User:John|John]] ([[User talk:John|talk]]) 23:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC) |
||
: 1) Why? a) It adds absolutely nothing of substance to the article; its lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock guitar; the only "reason" as far as I can see to include it is because Dan likes it and Dan pushes Christgau on literally ''everybody'' so that every Wikipedia article about music prominently features his parochial opinions. Dan even pushes BC at Metallica album articles. b) I don't like being bullied around, particularly by people with hidden agendas, which is exactly what I think Dan's is doing with the Christgau quotes at a broad swath of articles in content dispute with several editors. 2) Absolutely. In fact I agree to not revert the Christgau quote at ''AYE'' until this is completely resolved. Thanks again for helping us resolve this. [[User:GabeMc|<font color="green">GabeMc</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:GabeMc|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/GabeMc|contribs]])</sup> 00:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC) |
Revision as of 00:09, 23 March 2014
If you are an unregistered user editing as an IP you may contact me at User talk:GabeMc/IP
Speed limits and "laws of prohibition"
Speed limits are more complicated than you might think, see here. Are they gameable? Probably. The maximum posted speed is a bright line, but safety considerations override it in practice, so e.g. if one runs over a pedestrian when it would have been possible to avoid hitting them only by speeding up (something which happens on motorcycles pretty often) then one might well incur liability, and, conversely, if given a speeding ticket in such a situation it might provide a defense. Then there's the maximum safe speed thing which overrides maximum posted speeds. And your idea about "laws of prohibition" is an equally wild generalization, and less supportable. Surely, you say, prohibition of the possession of a controlled substance is perfectly clear. Nevertheless, there are many federal cases interpreting and deciding how one can tell if something is in someone's possession for purposes of the law. If it were possible to write laws that were ungameable and that could be interpreted algorithmically there'd be no need for appellate courts, eh?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:55, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- What I meant was that if a speed limit is set at 40Kmh, then anyone caught going 50Kmh can be ticketed without the need for police discretion. Reckless driving is another matter that is somewhat subjective. Laws of prohibition are explicit in that they prohibit the use and/or possession of certain substances. If someone is caught with heroin, its not a matter of the discretion of the police to decide if their case is especially egregious. Possession is possession regardless of the amount except in cases where small amounts are allowed, which is still explicit in that possession of less than one ounce of marijuana is allowed, but possession of more is not, i.e. 95 oz is legal, 1.5oz is not, but its still a predetermined bar that is not subject to the personal opinions of narcotics officers. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:06, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- But what if the heroin is in a drawer in a hotel room with three people's names on the hotel register and six other guests in the room. Who possesses the heroin? Also, if someone has heroin sewn into the lining of their hat, which they bought at a thrift store and didn't know it was there, do they possess it? What if it's welded into a secret compartment under a car, which car is then stolen and the thief tried for GTA? These things really truly do happen. Also, what about when a cop arresting someone for possession picks up the heroin? Does the cop possess it at that moment? Possession is an exceedingly complicated concept in Anglo-American law. That's why the laws are written simply and then the facts are interpreted by the judiciary. Possession is not possession, it's just not that simple. The more one tries to write all these possibilities into the law the more unintended consequences are produced. That's why it's much safer to stay with simple laws, appellate interpretation, and a general but not robotic adherence to stare decisis. That's what I think, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I said: "Possession is possession regardless of the amount", but yes, intent is a factor as is prior knowledge. Most countries require that the prosecution prove the mens rea, which actually ties in quite nice with requiring a warning for 3RR violation; if an editor has been warned that they are edit warring then they cannot claim ignorance of the situation. In this case, I was discussing the edits at the talk page when I was blocked, which was after the supposed edit-warring had stopped. Further, in this case the only reason why Bbb23 could claim multiple edits was that Static had edited the page as I was copyediting, but what if I hadn't looked at the page history? Do most editors check the revision history after each edit? How are they to know that they are at 3+ non-consecutive edits if they havn't checked the page history? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but now you're back to trying to rewrite a general rule so that it would have prevented one particular situation, which I don't think is a good idea usually.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I can't think of many good reasons to not warn someone first. Can you? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Asked and answered, Senator!— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I can't think of many good reasons to not warn someone first. Can you? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:53, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, but now you're back to trying to rewrite a general rule so that it would have prevented one particular situation, which I don't think is a good idea usually.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, I said: "Possession is possession regardless of the amount", but yes, intent is a factor as is prior knowledge. Most countries require that the prosecution prove the mens rea, which actually ties in quite nice with requiring a warning for 3RR violation; if an editor has been warned that they are edit warring then they cannot claim ignorance of the situation. In this case, I was discussing the edits at the talk page when I was blocked, which was after the supposed edit-warring had stopped. Further, in this case the only reason why Bbb23 could claim multiple edits was that Static had edited the page as I was copyediting, but what if I hadn't looked at the page history? Do most editors check the revision history after each edit? How are they to know that they are at 3+ non-consecutive edits if they havn't checked the page history? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 18:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
- But what if the heroin is in a drawer in a hotel room with three people's names on the hotel register and six other guests in the room. Who possesses the heroin? Also, if someone has heroin sewn into the lining of their hat, which they bought at a thrift store and didn't know it was there, do they possess it? What if it's welded into a secret compartment under a car, which car is then stolen and the thief tried for GTA? These things really truly do happen. Also, what about when a cop arresting someone for possession picks up the heroin? Does the cop possess it at that moment? Possession is an exceedingly complicated concept in Anglo-American law. That's why the laws are written simply and then the facts are interpreted by the judiciary. Possession is not possession, it's just not that simple. The more one tries to write all these possibilities into the law the more unintended consequences are produced. That's why it's much safer to stay with simple laws, appellate interpretation, and a general but not robotic adherence to stare decisis. That's what I think, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Falling Barnstars!
The Anachronistic Guitar Barnstar | ||
For getting Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix through the gruelling FA process. I wonder what Hendrix would do with a Parker Fly? Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC) |
- That is one kicking BS award, Curly, and you know how much I love BS. Thanks much for the excellent review. As for "what would Hendrix do" ... he'd jam. He would definitely jam. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:52, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you, GabeMc, for doing most of the work on this excellent article. I am honored to have done a little bit. You deserve most of the credit, but I am pleased to have contributed as well. Well done, Gabe! Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
Globalization of WP:VA/E
I'd be curious to know where else on the WP:VA/E list you'd support increased diversity. For example, it doesn't seem right to me that the only folk songs we have are either American or British. I see the Beatles are represented by both Sgt. Pepper and "All You Need Is Love"; what would you think of removing the latter and adding "Hava Nagila"? Cheers, Cobblet (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- That sounds like a fine suggestion; I would support that swap. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. One more: what's your opinion of swapping out American standards like Stardust (song) and Saint Louis Blues (song) for the Great American Songbook? Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, GAS looks like a pretty low-quality article at the moment, but that's not really a great reason to not add it; I'd have to think more about that one, but my instinct says no. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Would jazz standard be any better? My concern is whether any standard is vital on its own, even though the genre is undoubtedly vital as a whole. Of course, the same could be said of many of the songs we've currently selected, so I don't know if these two are necessarily the best songs to cut – would you say that either song has a better case over the other to stay? Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Maybe, but if we are to have two American jazz standards then Stardust (song) and Saint Louis Blues (song) are pretty strong candidates. Perhaps we should take a detailed look at what's currently listed and discuss ways of organizing and improving that aspect of VA/E at VA talk. At the very least I think that we can remove one of the two Beatles songs, as "I Want to Hold Your Hand" is currently listed there as well as "AYNIL". Cheers! GabeMc (talk|contribs) 21:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Would jazz standard be any better? My concern is whether any standard is vital on its own, even though the genre is undoubtedly vital as a whole. Of course, the same could be said of many of the songs we've currently selected, so I don't know if these two are necessarily the best songs to cut – would you say that either song has a better case over the other to stay? Cobblet (talk) 21:32, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Well, GAS looks like a pretty low-quality article at the moment, but that's not really a great reason to not add it; I'd have to think more about that one, but my instinct says no. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 16:04, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks. One more: what's your opinion of swapping out American standards like Stardust (song) and Saint Louis Blues (song) for the Great American Songbook? Cobblet (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
FA congratulations
Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Canadian drug charges and trial of Jimi Hendrix to FA status recently. If you would like to see this (or any other FA) appear as "Today's featured article" soon, please nominate it at the requests page; if you'd like to see an FA on a particular date in the next year or so, please add it to the "pending" list. In the absence of a request, the article may end up being picked at any time (although with 1,323 articles in Category:Featured articles that have not appeared on the main page at present, there's no telling how long – or short! – the wait might be). If you'd got any TFA-related questions or problems, please let me know. BencherliteTalk 22:35, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
- Wow, and for Are You Experienced too (do I spot a theme?!) BencherliteTalk 14:31, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Two things
One, I wanted to ask you honestly why you are making such a big deal out of this one source. I have stood up for your sterling work in getting the article promoted, but you have to ask, would this have made a difference to the overall quality of the article? Two, I am warning all the editors involved in this edit war that any further reversions at all pending a proper talk page consensus one way or the other will lead to a block. This includes you. I know you've committed to 0RR for 48 hours, which is great; can you hold on until the talk page discussion is complete? --John (talk) 23:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- 1) Why? a) It adds absolutely nothing of substance to the article; its lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock guitar; the only "reason" as far as I can see to include it is because Dan likes it and Dan pushes Christgau on literally everybody so that every Wikipedia article about music prominently features his parochial opinions. Dan even pushes BC at Metallica album articles. b) I don't like being bullied around, particularly by people with hidden agendas, which is exactly what I think Dan's is doing with the Christgau quotes at a broad swath of articles in content dispute with several editors. 2) Absolutely. In fact I agree to not revert the Christgau quote at AYE until this is completely resolved. Thanks again for helping us resolve this. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)