MiszaBot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 3 thread(s) (older than 15d) to User talk:Qwyrxian/Archive 3. |
|||
Line 122: | Line 122: | ||
:::::I was thinking about other users...but, in any event, that's not really that important. As for approach--I actually think your suggestion is just fine--start by going through the sources, one by one, and making sure they meet [[WP:RS]] and the associated statement meets [[WP:DUE]], and that there's no other way to proceed. As for "ignoring" the discussions when the become inconvenient...I think you are correct that some editors will do so; I mean, I don't know if any of the currently involved editors will do so, but I do know that I have encountered other editors on WP who have done so. In my opinion, in the long run, those editors are difficult to deal with only if there is a solid bloc of them. If there's just one or two people resisting in the face of consensus, then the built in policies against edit warring tend to work fairly well. However, there is a different "problem," although, personally I don't see it as so much of a problem as it is what makes Wikipedia work, and that is that there is ''a lot'' of flexibility built into many of the policies, and many things that aren't explicitly covered by either policy or guidelines. In that case, editors (especially more savvy editors, of whom I believe we have participating) can spend a long time arguing down every little detail. One example I've seen (although only participated in a very little bit) can be found on [[Talk: Historicity of Jesus]]. Luckily, I don't think our problems are nearly as unpleasant as those. |
:::::I was thinking about other users...but, in any event, that's not really that important. As for approach--I actually think your suggestion is just fine--start by going through the sources, one by one, and making sure they meet [[WP:RS]] and the associated statement meets [[WP:DUE]], and that there's no other way to proceed. As for "ignoring" the discussions when the become inconvenient...I think you are correct that some editors will do so; I mean, I don't know if any of the currently involved editors will do so, but I do know that I have encountered other editors on WP who have done so. In my opinion, in the long run, those editors are difficult to deal with only if there is a solid bloc of them. If there's just one or two people resisting in the face of consensus, then the built in policies against edit warring tend to work fairly well. However, there is a different "problem," although, personally I don't see it as so much of a problem as it is what makes Wikipedia work, and that is that there is ''a lot'' of flexibility built into many of the policies, and many things that aren't explicitly covered by either policy or guidelines. In that case, editors (especially more savvy editors, of whom I believe we have participating) can spend a long time arguing down every little detail. One example I've seen (although only participated in a very little bit) can be found on [[Talk: Historicity of Jesus]]. Luckily, I don't think our problems are nearly as unpleasant as those. |
||
:::::So, I think that your suggestion is fine, although I think we'll be better off if we go through, step by step, and agree on the sources we do have. Or, alternatively we can just ask everyone to compile a list of all of the sources they object to (or statements that don't match their source), and start looking at those lists. Then we can go through and either tag or remove all unsourced material. Then figure out what to do from there. Is this what you were thinking? If so, feel free to recommend it on the talk page; or, I can do it if you like. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian#top|talk]]) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
:::::So, I think that your suggestion is fine, although I think we'll be better off if we go through, step by step, and agree on the sources we do have. Or, alternatively we can just ask everyone to compile a list of all of the sources they object to (or statements that don't match their source), and start looking at those lists. Then we can go through and either tag or remove all unsourced material. Then figure out what to do from there. Is this what you were thinking? If so, feel free to recommend it on the talk page; or, I can do it if you like. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian#top|talk]]) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC) |
||
{{outdent}}In reference to your most recent comments about the name, I just need to call you out--''yours'' is the attitude that is exactly what I labeled on ANI as borderline disruptive--and thus I think your attitude on the talk pages is nearly as deserving of a "ban" as the editors relentlessly reverting. You basically stated that you've already made up your mind that it's "obvious" that the names are equal and we need a dual name--even though, of course, as we've already said, dual names aren't allowed. And, more importantly, despite the fact that a number of data sets support Senkaku as more common, and 1 data set supports them as equal. I actually believe that once we do the regressive analysis I did on the India articles (i.e., separating articles that state both from articles that just state one), we'll see the same results--in those articles that show a preference, Senkaku will dominate. But, I could well be wrong--it could be something unique about the Indian press that causes them to support Japan. And, if the end result is that they appear to be near equal, I will support the use of Pinnacle Islands (unless someone can come up with a better compromise that meets guidelines). But you seem to be saying that it doesn't really matter what other results we find, because ''you've'' already made up your mind. That's not collaborating in good faith. And furthermore, your bringing up of red herrings (like the number of speakers of Chinese, or the impossible to measure "impact factor") are those activities that I described as not strictly against the rules, but not helpful, either; on those, I'm willing to assume that you made the comments in good faith, as a potential consideration, but they're so far beyond what's relevant that they just obscure the issue. So I would like you to reconsider both your remarks there and your drive/desire to "ban" the "disruptive" elements, because I don't think your own conduct has been perfect, either. [[User:Qwyrxian|Qwyrxian]] ([[User talk:Qwyrxian#top|talk]]) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC) |
|||
== Comments on Timeline of Historic Inventions == |
== Comments on Timeline of Historic Inventions == |
Revision as of 22:27, 19 October 2010
Renaming of category
I have proposed here to rename Category:Hindu terrorism to Category:Hindutva terrorism, as to be more accurate to the meaning that the terrorism is politically and nationally motivated and not religiously motivated. Please join the discussion. SilverserenC 22:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Succession boxes
I can't tell if you actually prefer to have succession boxes for #1 songs or not when you reverted my removal of them on You're Beautiful, or if you just feel that because they are on so many articles, it's just accepted now. Anyhow, there has been a discussion ongoing at WT:CHARTS regarding their removal. I have removed the boxes from a number of articles, referring editors to the talk page if reverted. If you are against the removal, I hope you will add your reasons to the discussion, and I will leave this article alone. If you don't care either way but are just trying to follow community consensus, I hope you will allow me to continue with this project, as consensus appears to be changing. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 07:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, I had no idea of that mini-consensus. To be honest, I think I agree with the removal reasons given, as I don't like clutter, and I can't actually imagine that there are too many people who want to navigate using them--I mean, if you want to look at all of the number one songs/albums in a year, it makes more sense to me to navigate from that table/list page. I'll go back and remove the boxes myself. One suggestion--you may want to say in your edit summaries something like "Removing succession chart per discussion at WT:CHARTS," as that might help point others to the issue. Thanks for following up and explaining! Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Vandalism
Hi, It doesn't seem there's any edit warring on merely content dispute. I've made a few reverts on the articles and about two of my reverts were reverted by other editors who stated that I made a mistake by canceling their efforts on improving the article, but they never said that the cancellation of vanadlism was wrong. In response to it, I've spent some time on figuring out what they've done and those new reverts aims at keeping all recent changes while removing vandalism. --Winstonlighter (talk) 13:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, so if I understand you, you're saying that in the middle of the content dispute, someone also vandalized the article, and thus one of your reverts doesn't count. Well, if that's the case, then you've got the policy correct. Do still know, however that edit warring can occur regardless of the exact number of edits you make--3 reverts in 24 hours is an absolute maximum, not an entitlement. I was just worried that you were misinterpreting policy, which would be an unfortunate reason to be blocked. I've watchlisted the article, but I won't have time to look at it in detail for probably a few days at best. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- For the record, Qwyrxian, I do not accept that Winston was reverting any vandalism in the edits I listed in the original 3RR report, especially given that I was making the edits he reverted. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 15:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your understanding. The name ordering in this article has caused many troubles for a long time and probably gets more attention after Japanese arrested Chinese fishermen. What administrators have done so far is to see those changes as vandalism and revert all those changes, no matter it's pro-Japan or pro-China. I'm disappointed that John Smith's who spend tremendous efforts in reading Wikipedia guidelines ignores the discussion and other adminstrators' actions and keep pushing forward his unconsensus change on name ordering.
- As I told John Smith's, ScorchingPhoenix or Phoenix777 (I don't remember who is who, they look the same to me in terms of tones, use of grammar, writing and editing styles), when there was a pro-China changes on name ordering, I was in fact the first one to revert. When the pro-China change happened again, I was also the first one to ask administrators to revert. If John Smith's see the revert on his futile changes are not "pro-China" or breaking the consensus (with who?), he simply overlooks what has happened in this article in the whole month. --Winstonlighter (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- Winston, I have already asked you to stop making unfounded allegations against me. If you have evidence that I use puppets, please present it so that it can be soundly rejected. If not, stop it and grow up. John Smith's (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you
I would like to thank you for your contributions to the article misogyny. I would also like to thank you for noticing that all my edits are being reverted by Sugar-Baby-Love/Cybermud no matter how legitimate they are and for stepping in. Randygeorge (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
- I'm just doing what I think best matches policy...on that last revert, it wasn't the information content itself, it was the claim "easily sourced." I'm a really big believer in WP:BURDEN. If an editor wants to include a certain piece of information, in my opinion, it's up to them to prove it's legitimate via a reliable source. Sometimes, if I know a source, maybe I might add one. Or, if a new user doesn't understand sourcing, I'll help find them or at least explain in detail. But an experienced editor should know better. If xe thinks the info can be easily sourced, then great--xe can find a source and then re-add the sentence with the reference, and then we'll all be happy. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:17, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Bill O'Reilly
How's the research coming? I am very interested in seeing how you make out with the evaluation and proposed solution. :) //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
- To be honest, I haven't even looked at it. It's still in my queue of projects I want to work on, but I keep pushing it down due to other more pressing things, and due to the fact that it's not exactly going to be pleasant work...some day...Qwyrxian (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Indio Bandida
I left a note in both english and spanish to Indiobandida. Thanks for your concern. Osplace 00:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice
I'm sorry for all the fuss. I didn't know my User talk page. Now,I see what you're saying.--Koji Okada (talk) 19:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
"Good contributors don't make new articles"
(Posted here in response to your comments at the PUMP because second-class netizens can't post there.)
I've been watching RFA for a while now because I am curious about the kind of person the community accepts as an administrator. One thing I have noticed is that, quite frankly, if you don't have a substantial number of new articles under your belt (and preferably articles that went on to become GAs or features), you will inevitably face a lot of opposition purely on that basis.
Now, I agree with you: this seems illogical. Eventually, WP will have an article on every notable subject in the universe. Even if that is not true, we will asymptotically approach precisely that point and it will become exponentially harder to produce new articles as we get closer to it--so having "new article creation" as something of a measuring stick for a valued contributor is silly, in the long run.
...But we're fallible, and we don't know any better, and we do use that as a measuring stick, and because we do people will always feel driven to create new articles. They will do so on inappropriate topics and with questionable skill levels and with the best and the worst of intentions and the one thing we can count on is that, in all fairness, they are expected to. Just as the FBI is a gun culture, WP is a content culture, and you can't get ahead here without writing something. Contributors of new content may not be our most valuable contributors, but they are our most valued. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.19.84.33 (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. First a question--did you want me to copy-paste this over there, or was this intended just for me? Second, I think you are correct on many counts. I've only started watching RfA in about the last two months, although I did go back and look at some of the archives. I think you're definitely right that content is considered one of the key required things for many successful RfAs. There are even a number of editors who will almost always oppose any candidate without "significant content contributions." I have, however, usually found that measured in GA/FA (and sometimes DYK) levels--that is, I think that even those people who consider significant content creation to be mandatory recognize the transforming a stub into a GA is just as important/valuable as creating a dozen new stubs. Nonetheless, you are correct that there are editors who will oppose based strictly on the rationale that (paraphrasing) "Until you've driven to another town to get a rare book to complete an article, you'll never understand the difficulty of content creation enough to be trusted with the mop." This extreme stance is the one that makes me saddest, as to me it fails to recognize that much of being an admin has nothing to do with content creation. Plus, I feel like it hides a problematic ownership problem, as if an admin should give deference to someone, even if they break one policy or another, just because they have done a lot of hard work. However, I feel like I have been seeing more and more RfAs turn on policy rather than just content; I was particularly pleased to see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ron Ritzman pass--an editor who works almost exclusively behind the scenes, with very little content creation experience, but who needed the mop to make their very useful work be performed more easily.
- As to the issue of asymptotically approaching a maximum number of articles, I think you are correct, although, as I said at the pump, we're definitely far from that in some very obvious areas, like India and Africa. But I think that now is the time for Wikipedia to stop worrying about the idea of content creation as much as content improvement. Certainly, some content areas will always languish, because either there literally are no reliable sources to move an article past a stub, or the topic is so obscure that very few people are interested in improving it. But I think that now is the time for Wikipedia to say "We've got this awesome foundation, and some of what we have is truly outstanding. Let's bring up as much of the base level stuff up to good or outstanding levels, and not worry about adding more foundation." This is why the idea at the pump seems so backwards to me. I think we want to encourage people to do content a fair amount of content editing before they create new articles.
- On a related note, one thing I've been thinking about lately is the issue of immediatist vs. eventualism. I think that while, as a collaborative project, we will always be inherently incremental, it's time to start being a lot stricter on our core policies (the 5 pillars), and making sure that what information we do have meets reasonable standards. I'm contemplating writing an essay on the subject, although doing that at the moment would take away from other tasks (here and in real life). But my basic thought is that, when we look at the outside world, and, in particular, the academic world, Wikipedia doesn't get criticized for not having enough information--it gets criticized when the information it does have is wrong and/or uncited. Teachers, in particular, tell their students that they can't rely on Wikipedia, because there's no reason to believe any of it is "right". This is the challenge we need to meet--to create articles that can be accepted as serious, accurate, and useful. We do this not just by driving for more and more content, but by exercising good editorial judgment. It's no longer appropriate, I believe, to leave unsourced information floating around articles based on the idea that "someone will source that and improve it later...it's all about the step-by-step process." It gladdens me that we've at least moved past that on BLP articles, but I think we could stand to move towards more focus on WP:V on all of our articles. The problem is that our "content culture", especially from editors who were around since the beginning, makes some think that we have to preserve all of the so-called information we have here at all costs, and only remove it when we can persuade ourselves through hard, exhaustive work that no sourcing can be found. My hope is that, in part, longevity itself will shift the overall atmosphere on Wikipedia towards more immediatism and less eventualism--I have no doubt that my immediatism arises in part simply because I wasn't around at the beginning.
- In any event, sorry for the wall of text. Let me know if you want your comments transferred to the Pump, and I definitely like your idea of us as a "content culture"--it's a quick easy way to encapsulate a lot of what goes on in a variety of different places on Wikipedia. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
Clomiphene
Regarding the article on 'Clomiphene' where the change was made with 'this is wrong'.
That section of article as it currently stands is wrong. It displays a lack of understanding of the menstrual cycle. I don't have the necessary time to find references, but ultimately, it is the loss of Wiki if you decide not to change it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.54.162.129 (talk) 03:45, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- I certainly accept that the article may be wrong--it happens all the time. But Wikipedia articles have to be written a certain way. They aren't written as a conversation "This is right, no this is right, no this is!" They need to be written as a single, cohesive whole. Furthermore, information must be verified by reliable sources. I see that the info currently in the article isn't sourced, either, which is bad. If you want to make the change, what you should have done is to erase the information currently there, and replaced it with the "correct" information. Then it would be up to other editors who are familiar with the subject to discuss what the correct information is. Eventually, the decision on what is correct should be made by reference to reliable sources. If the sources disagree, then both viewpoints should be included. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
Another thank you
I really appreciate your rolling back the vandalism of my user page.Obviously the vandal is not an art lover.Skreen (talk) 18:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Xe blanked a number of few user pages, I believe in connection to the Goodbody Stockbrokers page. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:18, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Firstly, thank you for your patience in trying to keep this article under control. It really does appear that one (or several) of the editors have a significant COI. I noticed that the current anon IP is located at Virginia (USA) where apparently Hart works... Gillyweed (talk) 02:32, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
My IP is located in VA. How is that relevant? As I've said, I am new to Wikipedia, and did not know that all changes had to be cleared first. I think we all have the same goal, which is to make Hart's encyclopedia entry informative and neutral. As it stands, the page is in need of serious work. There's so much extraneous biographical information, and an undue focus on "poetry." As I just wrote on Hart's talk page, Hart made his name as a poet, but most of his current publications are in the areas of philosophy and theology.Phainein (talk) 02:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually talking about your IP, but it is interesting that you too are in Virginia. Why are there two/three editors all editing at once from the same place. Especially when they are making similar edits? Gillyweed (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that the article has way too much biographical information. As for the focus on poetry, that's an issue we should discuss. Up until recently, almost all of the sources that I had access to talked about his poetry, and a little bit about his literary criticism. Now, I may simply not have had good information about his work as a theologian/philosopher; and good, sourced info should be added regarding that. Sorry if I/Gillyweed made it sound like you need permission before making changes. The problem is that this article is very contentious (I don't know why, but it is). As such, it has some extra editing restrictions not found on all other articles. You're still welcome to make changes, but if someone does "undo" one of your changes, you should go to the article's talk page and discuss the specific changes you are proposing and why you think they should be made. This will allow us to establish a consensus (that follows policy) about how to move forward. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
- I wasn't actually talking about your IP, but it is interesting that you too are in Virginia. Why are there two/three editors all editing at once from the same place. Especially when they are making similar edits? Gillyweed (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Here's a shield for you Qwyrxian
The Userpage Shield | ||
Thanks for guarding user pages from vandalism Alistair Stevenson (talk) 14:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC) |
Thanks! Of course, I must give credit to my wonderful co-star, Huggle. 14:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi Qwyrxian. Thanks for chiming in. We seriously need to do something about it - it's been bothering me for a long time already. A discussion now needs to be coordinated somewhere other than at the VP. Please keep in touch. --Kudpung (talk)
Proceeding with edits
It appears that we have a problem in the page where we have both been actively editing. While the divide in opinion is nothing new, the recent series of relentless reverts does make it difficult for certain appropriate contents to be corrected. Even though discussions have been made and justifications for the contents were given, they tend to be ignored or discontinued by certain parties whenever any inconvenient refutations were established. Wikipedia standards also seemed to be selectively cited exclusively for convenient purposes by certain people.
Now, since the admins refuse to step in to deal with this, I am wondering what can be done about this. An easy way of handling the situation is to keep allowing certain contents to be suppressed until others get fed up and start an edit war. Another would be to somehow work out some content management process that is not biased by cultural preference. A third option would be to ask for a mediation or arbitration.
I am not sure how interested you are in keeping the page's content neutral or tolerating content that contradict your political views, but it would be nice to know how you feel about this given your experience with the "Sea of Japan naming dispute" page. Bobthefish2 (talk) 09:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- How would you feel if I requested Full Protection, say, for a week? This would at least give us a week during which no one could edit the page at all. I assume you mean both pages (Senkaku Islands and Senkaku Islands dispute). I hesitate to do so at the moment, since my edits were the last major ones (the moving of a chunk from the Islands page to the dispute page), so I don't want anyone to think I'm protecting "my version"--especially when what's up there right now is definitely not the version I prefer, if only because it's a great big fat mess.
- Then, if after about a week, we've been unable to make any progress on the talk page, we could move into mediation. Personally, I don't think mediation will help right now, because mediation seems to work best when there are clear and specific problems that need resolving, whereas we have a lot of different and complex disagreements. Nonetheless, I will definitely agree to participate in any mediation (formal or Cabal). Arbitration isn't needed yet, because arbitration deals with user behavior, not content. In my opinion, there's been some borderline activities from a number of different participants, but not quite enough to go that far...although, I've been at this for less time than others have, so I may just not have experienced the worst of it.
- As for my goals, all I want is to push the page to neutral and to clean it up (two goals which I hope are mutually compatible). As for my opinion...I, like everyone else, have both an opinion; nonetheless, I want to work (and want everyone else to work) within the framework required on WP for sourcing, due weight, etc. I do have a low tolerance for the idea that consensus can be used to override any core policy (here, NPOV in particular). I will say that I have, in the past completely switched my view point of a period of time in the face of clear and compelling evidence (on Kimchi, if it matters).
- So...full protection? Like I said, I'm pretty much tempted to wait until after someone else makes a significant edit so that it doesn't look like I'm trying to protect my version. Alternatively, you or someone else could request it. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:38, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I don't mind having the page protected for a while, but that may not necessarily solve the problem.
- Currently, the editorial process of the page is practically possessed by a selected few editors due to the constant reverts by a number of editors who are obviously striving to bias the article towards the Japanese. While you may not notice this, it is obviously happening if you check the edit history of both pages or the contributions history of the most frequent editors.
- Your misgivings towards the overriding effect of consensus is something I agree with and this is also an issue we are suffering from. Contrary to what you said, a lot of the disagreements that took place are in fact very simple. While you may not agree with all my arguments and concepts presented in the talk pages, there are a number of them that are unambiguously valid. The dispute regarding the Remin Ribao article is such an example, where it is clear that some editors were making completely false claims about what the original article said but refused to allow the article to be corrected. And of course, when I made the correction myself, I was treated with an instant revert and a vandalism warning (which I do not take seriously). To make it short, the nature of some editors involved make it simply ineffective to use a consensus approach - Consensus only works if everyone involved is rational and intelligent.
- Personally, I think it's best to simply block the worst vandals and their IP's from the two pages. I mean, it should be obvious to you who's exerting a great amount of destructive interference and who's not. But unfortunately, this process is not trivial especially if those people have lots of wiki-friends. Bobthefish2 (talk) 11:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
- I will say that I didn't follow the Rinmei Ribao issue closely. In part, the problem is that a number of editors are using, and even asking others to use, extraordinarily complex argumentative structures. I admit quite clearly that I didn't care enough about that particular source to read through all of the details; to me, behind all of the words, the issue seemed unbelievably simple: source X misattributed, intentionally, pictures of one event to an article about a different event. To me, that meant that the article in question was unreliable on the face of it. But, I didn't comment much because I didn't understand all of the details, plus a lot of the "evidence" was in languages that I don't understand. As a side note, I believe that part of our problem is that several different editors seem to not use English as a native language, so I feel like I'm seeing some disagreements escalating in part due to miscommunication.
- In any event, as I just stated at the ANI page about this issue, I don't see any one editor who should be blocked from the page. I see a number of different editors on both sides who are engaging in disruptive practices. One side makes a totally uncalled for bold change, and the other side reverts it. Then someone else makes a minor change, and the other side suddenly invents the idea that the page as it was before was in full consensus and every change needs to be fully discussed on the talk page first...sigh. I would like to start over, from the very beginning, find things that we agree about, things that are well sourced, and agree on having those in the article, and then slowly work our way to less contentious issues. Instead, we're seeing too many bold moves, too many reverts towards a false consensus, etc. Unless something terribly pressing arises today, I'm going to go crazy on Google (etc.) searches, and see if I can pin down as much hard "data" on the name as possible, as to me that is the most fundamental issue of the page (that is, the page's name itself). Qwyrxian (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- You might have mistaken that issue with User:Tenmei's discussions, unless you are saying my writing style is unclear. I am not convinced that a deficiency in English language ability is responsible for this mess. Other than Tenmei (who sounds distinctively oriental), I find the other users' level of English close to native level. So, I highly doubt miscommunication has ever been an issue (like seriously...).
- I don't really see a point to start over. The main task I see at hand is to remove the unsourced materials and dubious references/materials. If this cannot be achieved, I don't see how your idea can yield any better results. It's not like some editors will forget about the bad information they fought so hard to protect simply because of a wipe. While discussions can work in theory, my experience tells me that some editors are stubborn enough to ignore them when it becomes inconvenient. Is there any reason for you to you believe that wouldn't be the case? Bobthefish2 (talk) 18:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
- I was thinking about other users...but, in any event, that's not really that important. As for approach--I actually think your suggestion is just fine--start by going through the sources, one by one, and making sure they meet WP:RS and the associated statement meets WP:DUE, and that there's no other way to proceed. As for "ignoring" the discussions when the become inconvenient...I think you are correct that some editors will do so; I mean, I don't know if any of the currently involved editors will do so, but I do know that I have encountered other editors on WP who have done so. In my opinion, in the long run, those editors are difficult to deal with only if there is a solid bloc of them. If there's just one or two people resisting in the face of consensus, then the built in policies against edit warring tend to work fairly well. However, there is a different "problem," although, personally I don't see it as so much of a problem as it is what makes Wikipedia work, and that is that there is a lot of flexibility built into many of the policies, and many things that aren't explicitly covered by either policy or guidelines. In that case, editors (especially more savvy editors, of whom I believe we have participating) can spend a long time arguing down every little detail. One example I've seen (although only participated in a very little bit) can be found on Talk: Historicity of Jesus. Luckily, I don't think our problems are nearly as unpleasant as those.
- So, I think that your suggestion is fine, although I think we'll be better off if we go through, step by step, and agree on the sources we do have. Or, alternatively we can just ask everyone to compile a list of all of the sources they object to (or statements that don't match their source), and start looking at those lists. Then we can go through and either tag or remove all unsourced material. Then figure out what to do from there. Is this what you were thinking? If so, feel free to recommend it on the talk page; or, I can do it if you like. Qwyrxian (talk) 21:34, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
In reference to your most recent comments about the name, I just need to call you out--yours is the attitude that is exactly what I labeled on ANI as borderline disruptive--and thus I think your attitude on the talk pages is nearly as deserving of a "ban" as the editors relentlessly reverting. You basically stated that you've already made up your mind that it's "obvious" that the names are equal and we need a dual name--even though, of course, as we've already said, dual names aren't allowed. And, more importantly, despite the fact that a number of data sets support Senkaku as more common, and 1 data set supports them as equal. I actually believe that once we do the regressive analysis I did on the India articles (i.e., separating articles that state both from articles that just state one), we'll see the same results--in those articles that show a preference, Senkaku will dominate. But, I could well be wrong--it could be something unique about the Indian press that causes them to support Japan. And, if the end result is that they appear to be near equal, I will support the use of Pinnacle Islands (unless someone can come up with a better compromise that meets guidelines). But you seem to be saying that it doesn't really matter what other results we find, because you've already made up your mind. That's not collaborating in good faith. And furthermore, your bringing up of red herrings (like the number of speakers of Chinese, or the impossible to measure "impact factor") are those activities that I described as not strictly against the rules, but not helpful, either; on those, I'm willing to assume that you made the comments in good faith, as a potential consideration, but they're so far beyond what's relevant that they just obscure the issue. So I would like you to reconsider both your remarks there and your drive/desire to "ban" the "disruptive" elements, because I don't think your own conduct has been perfect, either. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Comments on Timeline of Historic Inventions
Hello,
I moved the section to the end, where you said it should be.
I am very unfamiliar with Wikipedia, except as a source of information, but it is important to me that it be accurate, which is why I made the entry I did. I was really annoyed at this article, for the reasons I gave. I have seen articles before that I thought were not up to serious standards, but they were always what looked like honest attempts. I have never before seen anything like this. I hope it does not happen very much.
I do a lot of work on Wikianswers, especially in the section on the Middle Ages, and I was working on lists of inventions from that period and the Renaissance, comparing the two. There are articles in Wikipedia on the technology of each, which I had used as sources, but I was doing further research to improve an answer I had made, when I hit the Timeline of Historic Inventions.
I would really enjoy going into the timeline list except it looks like a hot issue that people are more interested in debating than presenting facts usefully. That being the case, I find it too scary for me. I don't mind cooperating with people, but I really dislike competing with them.
Also, I really do think the whole thing should be revisited from the ground up, with some sort of standards being applied. If it were up to me, I would require every entry to include a citation, but also a note saying whether the date is the date of an invention or the date of the oldest evidence of the invention. I would require inventions to have a traceable impact on history, and a widespread cultural importance. Frankly, I doubt the contributers to this article would accept any form of discipline.
What the article really needs is a dispassionate arbiter who can judge an invetion according to stated standards, as objectively as possible, and make a determination. Unfortunately, that is a little out of keeping with the philosophy of Wikipedia, so I doubt it would be done, even temporarily. But in the meantime, it is a mess, and is likely to remain so. Too bad.
I don't know about the four tildas. I clicked on the signature button, and whatever the robotic device is that checks to see if I did that flagged the text anyway.
Anyhow, thanks for the input.
George Harvey --ghh 23:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by George H. Harvey (talk • contribs)
Minor edit
"What is minor or not" is a subjective issue but your point is taken. STSC (talk) 02:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)