No edit summary |
|||
Line 126: | Line 126: | ||
== You've got the last word, stop beating the horse == |
== You've got the last word, stop beating the horse == |
||
You're one that has to have the last word, it's obvious. Just take it. Let Flyer, may the Gods help her, deal with your issues. [[User:CelticGreen|CelticGreen]] ([[User talk:CelticGreen|talk]]) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
You're one that has to have the last word, it's obvious. Just take it. Let Flyer, may the Gods help her, deal with your issues. [[User:CelticGreen|CelticGreen]] ([[User talk:CelticGreen|talk]]) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC) |
||
== NOR Request for arbitration == |
|||
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the [[WP:NOR|No original research]] article, I am notifying you that a [[WP:RFA|request for arbitration]] has been opened [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#No_Original_Research here]. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. [[User:COGDEN|''CO<small>GDEN</small>'']] 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 23:56, 12 December 2007
As I've left Wikipedia, there's not a heck of a lot of reason to leave me messages here, but go for it.
- Read your new user page, sounds understandable to me, wishing you the best whatever the future holds for you, and you contributed well IMO from when I first noticed you 3 odd years ago. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:03, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The part about fiction-related articles is dead-on. The quesion that I ask myself as I work on them: is it worth it? If we actually insisted on enforcing WP:NOT#PLOT, it would wipe out a great majority of all the merging and plot overhauls that I've done. I wouldn't necessarily be sad, but there is an 800-pound gorilla of editors who are willing to defend it. There has been a request for aribration for TTN, at 1/0/0/1, for being aggressive in enforcing WP:FICT. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- It is possible to write sensibly about fiction, but only when there is an appreciable body of secondary literature. Without that, the articles are little more than book or film reviews and summaries, with some scattered references from newspaper articles and "making of" features and (if you are lucky) fan magazines. The classic example of works of fiction with a large body of secondary literature is the works of William Shakespeare. There are also contemporary works of fiction that have large amounts of secondary literature, but for most articles on contemporary fiction the battle is balancing plot summaries with out-of-universe detail. Carcharoth (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
- I know about those examples, but my interests lie in specific, very modern areas: Ender's Game series (the only article is the eponymous Ender Wiggin), Animorphs (not a single thing), Digimon (nothing), Power Rangers (nothing), and Pokémon (again, nothing) to list a few examples. They are all kid-orientated shows, for one thing. Second they're just too new. The only hope for those articles are exacly that – reviews, newspaper articles, and making of features, which I sense that you seem to dislike. The latter three have feature nonexistent commentary; they've never been relased on DVD, and the VHS releases are just straight episodes without director's stuff. It's depressing, really. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish. Best wishes, ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:43, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
(moved from userpage) The project requires a diversity of points of view, and yours will be missed How will things get better if the good people leave? Your need for a break--that's another matter, and reasonable enoughDGG (talk) 00:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(moved from userpage)
- My respect for you has gone up a notch after this decision. We do not need more power hungry admins, especially ArBcom members who cannot take the time to review without prejudice, who have a poor attitude, and the inability to admit when wrong. We are human beings here, not robots. I wish you good luck in your real life. Wikipedia is not it. Good luck in whatever you do. Sincerely, - Jeeny (talk) 01:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Phil
In having added so many of the damn words to policy and guidance that now seem to cause such frigging issues, and which have driven you away, I'm sorry. Had I realised the impact of my words, I never would have added them. I'm not sure what the issue is, but it seems like Wikipedia is flawed; people protect their own position rather than seek to build consensus. I have hopes that at some point people will see the goal is as much to write in an encyclopaedic manner about subjects as it is to write about typically encyclopedic subjects. You are right there's a ball been dropped, and I can't see how we'll ever get it picked up again. All the best, maybe I'll bump into you elsewhere. Steve block Talk 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Confusion is nothing new
Well, it's nothing new for me. People whom I have come to regard highly in this project hold you in high regard, Phil, and I have to respect that. At the same time, I'm faced with a history of intransigence, hypocrisy, and uncommunicativeness on your part. I spent weeks trying to engage you in dialogue, asking many questions, raising many points pro & con, all to no avail. I was left with the uncomfortable opinion that the article we disagreed over was history-blanked (twice) on an entirely subjective basis, as a means of enforcing your preferred version of it, and that the blanking has stuck based on your appeal to the lowest denominator: mob sentiment.
Your userpage used to tell us that excessive policy creep is the problem, yet you used those same policies to support your unilateral action. Even when reverted by another admin, you came back & repeated your actions. You almost convinced me to stop contributing here. After all, a wiki isn't supposed to be about one man's opinion of what's true or false, but about a community building consensus.
Be assured, I think some of your actions were immensely combative, even bullheaded. However, the other voices raised on your behalf lead me to the realization that this project will be less without you. Even in the heart of our disagreement, your constant abrasion drove me to produce much better argument than I would have otherwise. We are less for your departure. --Ssbohio (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom questions
Hi. I'm Ral315, editor of the Wikipedia Signpost. We're interviewing all ArbCom candidates for an article next week, and your response is requested.
- What positions do you hold (adminship, arbitration, mediation, etc.)?
- Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
- Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
- Why do you think users should vote for you?
Please respond on my talk page. We'll probably go to press in the next few hours, but late responses will be added as they're submitted. Thanks, Ral315 » 03:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry but
I'm dancing here. I considered Phil to be the most rude Administrator I ever met, and the only "senior" contributor who I'd rather see leave then join a discussion. If people above here can give their praise, then I can give my less friendly words. I'm not going to be politically correct and say how bad it is that we have another user leaving the project. In this particular case, as I have said before, I think it will help the project. Any user that makes enemies among fellow contributors (not newbies/ips) as quickly and as often as Phil did, is simply an unsuitable administrator. Sure he did a lot of work and raised some daring points, but if he had had any balls he would have called for reconfirmation of his administrator status. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:10, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
ArbCom table with portfolio links
Hello! As we did for last year's election, we are again compiling a Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table. This table contains a column "Portfolio" for links that display candidates' pertinent skills. I will be going through each candidate's statements and gradually populate the column, but this may take some time. Please feel free to add some links in the form [link|c] if you feel it shows conflict resolution skills, or [link|o] otherwise. It would also be helpful if you can check if the information about you is correct.
My motivation is that as a voter, I don't want to just rely on a candidate's words, but also see their actions. Moreover, I believe a portfolio of "model cases" to remember in difficult situations can be useful for each candidate, as well. I believe that conflict resolution skills are most pertinent to the position, but if you want to highlight other skills, please feel free to use a new letter and add it to Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2007/Summary table#Columns of this table. — Sebastian 05:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC) (I may not be watching this page anymore. If you would like to continue the conversation, please do so here and .) (This is because of the next message.)
Left Wikipedia but still standing for Arbcom?
According to your user and talk page, you have left Wikipedia. According to your Arbcom candidate statement, updated today, you are actively standing for the Arbitration Committee. Now we've seen some unusual candidacies, people who are not admins, to people with under 1000 edits, to people with a block log as long as their arm, to Danny who refuses to answer any questions ... but I still think being an arbitrator while not being a Wikipedian at all would be a first! :-) Could you clarify whether you have, in fact, left, please? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 18:00, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm doing my bit
Hope you don't mind, User:Hiding/arb. Hiding T 14:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Oh, and that Brubaker quote did hit the spot. Ta. Hiding T 14:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
My observations about your ArbCom election and your approach to the project
Phil, I spent a few days thinking about exactly what vicious criticism I'd offer when I voted on your ArbCom candidacy. It finally occured to me how futile an exercise that would be: You aren't liable to reconsider your approach based on my criticism, and I'm unlikely to improve the encyclopedia buy focusing on you. There's a fundamental mismatch between your approach (that you bear the Truth to the masses) and the collaborative nature of this project.
IMO, you're probably right 90% of the time. I probably agree with the actions you take 95% of the time. But that's not enough. The issue is that even the right action isn't right if it is done with a surfeit of snark, or if it has the effect of pouring gasoline on a fire; Arbitrators, in my view, don't fight fires with gasoline.
If you aren't actually perfect, then you would go further by being willing to listen to others, justify your actions, avoid the appearance of insult, and abandon the monopolist point-of-view. I have tremendous respect for much of what you do. It's how you do it that creates more stress for you (and me).
I'm trying to make the issue clear without rancor, and I intend my criticisms only toward how you do things, not toward you, yourself. We all fall prey to cognitive biases when we believe in our cause. As a professor of mine has said of me: we all believe we're right; That doesn't make you special. Your immense body of knowledge and impressive history of contributions, however, do make you special. It would be a loss to the project to lose you over the ArbCom election. --Ssbohio 20:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
- In the same vein, I could use one of these if you're still giving them out. --Ssbohio (talk) 02:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
WT:SPOILER archival
Thank you for the WT:SPOILER dump on my talk page, but I am not concerned about the ability to view threads. I can easily view threads at WT:SPOILER and in the archives. I am concerned about the limited time-period editors are given to reply in threads. Editors can't reply in threads in the archives — they are effectively buried. Archival buries the thread and closes it off to new comments. It's true that an editor can read a comment in the archives and start a new thread on the current talk page, but then the thread of a discussion is broken. Earlier I changed the bot archival to 21 days which seemed reasonable to me, and then decided to double it while elections for the arbitration committee are going on. Editors could feasibly research every candidate and vote in the elections while actively participating at WT:SPOILER, but if an editor wishes to focus on the current elections rather than WT:SPOILER, their comments at WT:SPOILER should not be buried. I don't think 10 days until a thread is archived is reasonable when speaking about the talk page of a disputed guideline. Especially when another editor can just not reply to a question and force a thread to be archived. The talk page for the policy on neutral point of view is set to 30 days. The talk page for the style guide for films hasn't been archived in 16 months. What's the rush? On the WikiEN-l mailing list, you said "Our mission is to provide information, not hide it." Why hide 11-day-old comments in the archives? If there must be a limit, I don't think a period of 21 days or 42 days makes the talk page "unusable." If a comment is buried after 11 days, the talk page becomes unusable to editors who become aware of the issue at requests for comment. Congratulations on guessing your random password by the way. --Pixelface 01:30, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
NOR
???? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 22:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Dude, this made me literaly laugh out loud..perfect edit summary...;) Dreadstar † 22:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- However, dropping the "F-bomb" as you did, made a considerable change to my attitude. Totally uncalled for. Dreadstar † 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, thanks so much for your apology - I understand your reasoning and frustration with its removal. There are good reasons for a disputed section tag not to be present on an Official Policy page, this is an old discussion that first took place months ago when COGDEN tried to place the disputed section tag for mainspace articles on the Policy page, he edit warred over that, until consensus and a threat to block him made him stop. Then he created this new template to get around the mainspace tag use issue. But a policy page should not contain material that is under true dispute.
- However, dropping the "F-bomb" as you did, made a considerable change to my attitude. Totally uncalled for. Dreadstar † 22:25, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
- However, this dispute has not shown itself to have any legs or substance - it's been going around in cicles for months and months, with the article beeing protected over and over again. It's time to put an end to this particular dispute, and the tag adds nothing. That's my view, and I believe a view that has has support of many editors.
Template:Wiki24
I changed this template from a box to a line of text for a few reasons:
- The box is usually found as a sister project to Wikipedia, and Wikia isn't a sister project, and the box gives the incorrect impression that it is. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) versus Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects). Wikia is merely just another external link, it doesn't have any special status.
- I want to standardize the links to Wikia, and doing it in standard external link style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Links) seems to be much more prevalent than with boxes.
- These boxes seem to point to fan sites only. On meta's m:List of largest wikis the highest non-Wikimedia project that has a box is the Star Wars wiki, which is barely used, and is 69 on list. Even other Wikia projects rate higher (health.wikia and local.wikia, for example). Why are there no boxes outside of fandom?
I realize this is a minor style issue (which is why I'm bringing it to talk), but I'm the sort of person who likes some consistency across articles. I don't see how the box is "acceptable and beneficial", when a line of text would do the job at least equally, and probably better. --Phirazo 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I'll leave the boxes alone where they are the primary way of linking to Wikia, and just standardize the ones where a line of text is used more often. As far as I can see, the underused boxes are for links to Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia, and other ones see much more usage (for example, the Harry Potter Wiki) --Phirazo 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I see what you mean, but the line of text is pretty standard for Star Trek and Star Wars articles (the templates for a line of text are used in hundreds of articles). I'd prefer to have the entire franchise be one way or the other, and the easier way to go is a line of text. --Phirazo 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Allegations of misconduct
This is just one in a long line of allegations of misconduct coming from Grue, Pixelface, and one or two others. I think it's long past time we made serious efforts to steer this matter to dispute resolution, where it belongs. As it is, the debate is being poisoned by what amount to personal attacks. See this. --Tony Sidaway 18:50, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Bold proposal
If I may ask, why did you write "Bold proposal: Nuke the spoiler template. Nuke all "spoiler" policies." on the WikiEN-l mailing list on May 15, 2007[1] before you listed the {{spoiler}} template for deletion on May 16, 2007? Were you aware of the TFD process before you sent that email? --Pixelface (talk) 20:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
AfD on the massacre
You might want to calm down a bit--it's a bit much, and you may wish to restate your deletion reasoning instead of challenging each user in an arrogant tone that lacks WP:AGF. I'm sure you nominated it in good faith yourself, but it's a bit much and seems to be hurting your chances, as the confrontational tone is just going to make things heated. Step back, let the community decide. It looks like you may be trying to own the page, which is unfortunate. Lawrence Cohen 00:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have to agree - this was a rather unwise AfD, and your behaviour during it didn't help your cause. While I'm sure you nominated it in good faith, I think it was highly ill-advised to do so while the subject is still headline news; when an event like a shooting spree is reported, many people (including myself) will immediately come to Wikipedia to read about it, and if the article doesn't exist yet (or has been deleted) someone will create it. Effectively, despite what WP:NOT#NEWS asserts, current news stories are almost always notable.
- Additionally, it doesn't look good to nominate for deletion an article that's only a few hours old, unless it meets one of the speedy deletion criteria. I mean, I consider myself a deletionist, but I'd never nominate an article for AfD less than 24 hours after it had been created, unless its subject matter was blatantly unsuitable for Wikipedia; such new articles are frequently still in the process of being written, and can improve very quickly if allowed to remain for a few days. While I hate to see bad articles hang around as much as anybody, we should remember that there is no deadline and they don't have to be deleted immediately.
- If this seems like a lecture, I apologise - I'm not trying to talk down to you, and I genuinely appreciate the good work you've done elsewhere on Wikipedia. I just think your judgement in starting this AfD was poor, and wanted to explain why. There's nothing wrong with deleting articles for being non-notable news reports; but at least wait for them to leave the headlines first. (A good example is Hillary Clinton presidential campaign office hostage crisis, which had an article while it was being reported, but has now been - rightly - deleted and merged.) Thanks for reading, and happy editing. Terraxos (talk) 04:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Your recent edits
Removing entire sections of an article are considered vandalism. Do not continue such behaviour. Removing entire sections because "you don't feel" and removing verifiable content is vandalism. Referenced sources are there. Your removal is vandalism. CelticGreen (talk) 05:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- You removed full sections of sourced information. That's vandalism. You can edit the section but removing it IS vandalism. Your personal beef with the supercouple article and what you decide is unwarranted. Your continued removal of sourced information is vandalism. CelticGreen (talk) 05:25, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
- This is what I stated on my talk page:
- "Phil Sandifer, every couple mentioned in the Primetime supercouples section are supercouples. If you read the article and especially this source...[2]...which mentions Fox Mulder and Dana Scully, you'll see that the word Supercouple is not what mainly defines a supercouple. That entire book cites some of the most notable supercouples in primetime and film (not just soap operas). But as for the Primetime section, you are right that it needs to be improved, and I'll start by adding the reference to Mulder and Scully's name that cites them as a supercouple. Also, the term supercouple doesn't drop off in usefulness the further you get from soap operas, considering that it is used to describe super popular or extremely-wealthy celebrity pairings and has use in the comic book world, as well as the toy world. The words power couple and dynamic duos usually mean the same thing as the word supercouple, which that source I cited above also points out." Flyer22 (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
You've got the last word, stop beating the horse
You're one that has to have the last word, it's obvious. Just take it. Let Flyer, may the Gods help her, deal with your issues. CelticGreen (talk) 05:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
NOR Request for arbitration
Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 23:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)