SlimVirgin (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
Of course, I did understand that. So, I think that you were lost because you missed my point. My point is simply that "novel syntheses" should not be in the list (of unpublished material to exclude). The policy, as stated by Jimbo Wells, says that unpublished syntheses '''that amount to a novel narration or interpretation''' should be excluded. So, not all unpublished syntheses should be excluded. SlimVirgin suggested that we exclude unpublished novel synthesis '''that advance a position'''. Someone else, perhaps you, suggested that we directly state that "article should not '''promote''' a novel synthesis". None of these two options capture the notion that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. OTOH, there are many wording possible to capture this notion. I proposed that we exclude "unpublished synthesis '''that advance a new unpublished position'''". I know you don't like "advance a ... position". I used it because SlimVirgin used it. What was important is the "new unpublished". I could as well have proposed that we exclude "syntheses '''that include new unpublished material'''". My point was only to have something that respects Jimbo Well view that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. I cannot believe that I am being asked to stop posting in the policy page because of a problem of communication. I think Harald88 understood me well. So, if one understood me, it means that it was not so bad. [[User:-Lumière|-Lumière]] 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
Of course, I did understand that. So, I think that you were lost because you missed my point. My point is simply that "novel syntheses" should not be in the list (of unpublished material to exclude). The policy, as stated by Jimbo Wells, says that unpublished syntheses '''that amount to a novel narration or interpretation''' should be excluded. So, not all unpublished syntheses should be excluded. SlimVirgin suggested that we exclude unpublished novel synthesis '''that advance a position'''. Someone else, perhaps you, suggested that we directly state that "article should not '''promote''' a novel synthesis". None of these two options capture the notion that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. OTOH, there are many wording possible to capture this notion. I proposed that we exclude "unpublished synthesis '''that advance a new unpublished position'''". I know you don't like "advance a ... position". I used it because SlimVirgin used it. What was important is the "new unpublished". I could as well have proposed that we exclude "syntheses '''that include new unpublished material'''". My point was only to have something that respects Jimbo Well view that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. I cannot believe that I am being asked to stop posting in the policy page because of a problem of communication. I think Harald88 understood me well. So, if one understood me, it means that it was not so bad. [[User:-Lumière|-Lumière]] 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
||
:Lumiere, it's the length of your posts and the frequency, plus the fact that they are hard to understand. I think if you got more editing experience, some of the policy issues that confuse you would become clearer. [[User:SlimVirgin|SlimVirgin]] <sup><font color="Purple">[[User_talk:SlimVirgin|(talk)]]</font></sup> 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC) |
Revision as of 03:16, 25 March 2006
My previous login name was Lumiere (archived talk page). Recently, I also used the login name User:Étincelle, but not anymore.
NOR and V
Lumiere/Etincelle, practically no useful discussion has been possible for weeks on these talk pages because of your input. These are important policy pages and editors have to be free to discuss them without having you (deliberately, it seems to me) obfuscating every issue. If you're not doing it deliberately, then I apologize most sincerely for writing to you in this way, but I'm not sure what else to do. As Lumiere and as Étincelle, you have contributed more to policy talk pages than to the encyclopedia, and yet you must realize you have little chance of understanding our policies, or of making useful contributions to them, until you have experience of actually editing the encyclopedia, and preferably substantial experience. I'm therefore writing to request that you stop editing the talk pages of WP:NOR and WP:V for a few weeks (and other policy talk pages if you're doing the same elsewhere) until you've gained more editing experience. Once again, I am truly very sorry if your intention is, in fact, to contribute constructively to those pages. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:39, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi again, in order to comply with the rules of the dispute-resolution process, I'm once again making an effort to resolve the issue of your posts to the talk pages of NOR and V (and possibly other policy pages too). Regardless of the rights or wrongs of your arguments, several editors have said your posts are causing a problem on the talk pages, with the result that we're all finding it hard to discuss the policies. I have to tell you that, if you continue, you're likely either to be blocked for disruption by an admin, or we'll pursue the dispute-resolution process further, if necessary to the Arbitration Committee, which I'm fairly sure will consider favorably a request that you be banned from those pages. As this could be a drawn-out process for everyone, I'm asking you again whether we can reach some amicable compromise: that, for example, you voluntarily withdraw from these pages until you have more editing experience, or that you restrict yourself to a certain number of posts there per month, or that you at least take a break for a couple of weeks in the first instance. Do any of these options seem acceptable to you? SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
I need to collect some information about this situation. I will get back to you. -Lumière 00:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:05, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Re: NOR comments
I must say I do have trouble following your attempts to clarify what you mean. I think you should hold off further discussion/ clarifications on such policy questions, until consensus is reached as to whether you will retain the privilege to edit policy pages. In this specific case, you may be up against the language disconnection again: I had no problem with your use of the word "sourced"; I was explaining that the nutshell does not deal with the specifics of sourcing. The requirement to have a published source is already there: it says, "Articles may not contain any unpublished..." and then a list of what things may not be included. "Unpublished", in this instance, refers to each item in the list. —LeflymanTalk 02:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Of course, I did understand that. So, I think that you were lost because you missed my point. My point is simply that "novel syntheses" should not be in the list (of unpublished material to exclude). The policy, as stated by Jimbo Wells, says that unpublished syntheses that amount to a novel narration or interpretation should be excluded. So, not all unpublished syntheses should be excluded. SlimVirgin suggested that we exclude unpublished novel synthesis that advance a position. Someone else, perhaps you, suggested that we directly state that "article should not promote a novel synthesis". None of these two options capture the notion that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. OTOH, there are many wording possible to capture this notion. I proposed that we exclude "unpublished synthesis that advance a new unpublished position". I know you don't like "advance a ... position". I used it because SlimVirgin used it. What was important is the "new unpublished". I could as well have proposed that we exclude "syntheses that include new unpublished material". My point was only to have something that respects Jimbo Well view that only (unpublished) syntheses that amount to a novel narrative or interpretation should be excluded. I cannot believe that I am being asked to stop posting in the policy page because of a problem of communication. I think Harald88 understood me well. So, if one understood me, it means that it was not so bad. -Lumière 03:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
- Lumiere, it's the length of your posts and the frequency, plus the fact that they are hard to understand. I think if you got more editing experience, some of the policy issues that confuse you would become clearer. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 25 March 2006 (UTC)