Dr. Blofeld (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Gerda Arendt (talk | contribs) →Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox: we can start today |
||
Line 28: | Line 28: | ||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement%2FInfobox&type=revision&diff=735852203&oldid=735837848 :] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement%2FInfobox&type=revision&diff=735837848&oldid=735608562 -] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement%2FInfobox&type=revision&diff=736756076&oldid=736698612 )] I'm about as convinced that you genuinely want to "let go of the past" as I am that you often don't understand English during discussions. Those were very recent additions.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 21:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement%2FInfobox&type=revision&diff=735852203&oldid=735837848 :] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement%2FInfobox&type=revision&diff=735837848&oldid=735608562 -] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Quality_Article_Improvement%2FInfobox&type=revision&diff=736756076&oldid=736698612 )] I'm about as convinced that you genuinely want to "let go of the past" as I am that you often don't understand English during discussions. Those were very recent additions.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 21:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
: I add when I happen to see things. I was not aware of Solti until Brian mentioned it in the discussion you initiated for the arbitrators, Fleming came up in an RfA that closed today, Coward was changed three times today, too much to follow. Again, you can remove what disturbs you. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
: I add when I happen to see things. I was not aware of Solti until Brian mentioned it in the discussion you initiated for the arbitrators, Fleming came up in an RfA that closed today, Coward was changed three times today, too much to follow. Again, you can remove what disturbs you. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::Which is all too often Gerda. Name a day when you've not mentioned an infobox or even thought about one. It's become a deep obsession to the point that you don't care who you hurt or force out of the project. I understand why you support infoboxes but this nonsense has stepped up in recent weeks, with five articles targetted by Tim and Brian I can think of in the last week or two. Nobody deserves to have to deal with this level of bullying and harassment on a daily basis, especially people who've put in dozens of hours work to promote important subjects. You may not act belligerently, or be largely the one starting discussions and trouble, but you're pulling the strings and know ''exactly'' what is going on, and you endorse it, because you want to see infoboxews made mandatory. It puts people off wanting to contribute to wikipedia. Do you want Tim and Brian to walk out in disgust? We cannot afford to lose such editors, regardless of their outlook on infoboxes. You've lost all sense of priority and reality on here. Infoboxes are a minor issue at best, not the be all and end all on here. I cannot believe how destructive this has all become.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
:::Which is all too often Gerda. Name a day when you've not mentioned an infobox or even thought about one. It's become a deep obsession to the point that you don't care who you hurt or force out of the project. I understand why you support infoboxes but this nonsense has stepped up in recent weeks, with five articles targetted by Tim and Brian I can think of in the last week or two. Nobody deserves to have to deal with this level of bullying and harassment on a daily basis, especially people who've put in dozens of hours work to promote important subjects. You may not act belligerently, or be largely the one starting discussions and trouble, but you're pulling the strings and know ''exactly'' what is going on, and you endorse it, because you want to see infoboxews made mandatory. It puts people off wanting to contribute to wikipedia. Do you want Tim and Brian to walk out in disgust? We cannot afford to lose such editors, regardless of their outlook on infoboxes. You've lost all sense of priority and reality on here. Infoboxes are a minor issue at best, not the be all and end all on here. I cannot believe how destructive this has all become.♦ [[User:Dr. Blofeld|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#aba67e">''Dr. Blofeld''</span>]] 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
||
:::: I'd prefer not to mention the word infobox for the rest of the year. Will you let me? We can start today, - so I said in the case, in 2013. --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC) |
|||
{{ec}} *Yet more nonsensical crap twisted and distorted by the maintainer of this "list". If it is supposedly acceptable to simply remove articles, why does that editor choose to emphasise the articles removed? Again it is worth drawing attention to the edit summary of "actually quite amusing" which demonstrates the purely disruptive intention. [[User:Sagaciousphil|<span style="color: Navy">SagaciousPhil</span>]] - [[User Talk:Sagaciousphil|'''Chat''']] |
{{ec}} *Yet more nonsensical crap twisted and distorted by the maintainer of this "list". If it is supposedly acceptable to simply remove articles, why does that editor choose to emphasise the articles removed? Again it is worth drawing attention to the edit summary of "actually quite amusing" which demonstrates the purely disruptive intention. [[User:Sagaciousphil|<span style="color: Navy">SagaciousPhil</span>]] - [[User Talk:Sagaciousphil|'''Chat''']] |
||
Revision as of 22:13, 29 August 2016
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox
- Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Infobox (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
This is a problematic page in that it essentially victimises a small group of editors who are known to not approve of infoboxes in arts and biographies. Though other articles are included in an attempt to make the list more discreet, articles by Tim Riley, Brianboulton, Cassianto, SchroCat and Dr. Blofeld feature strongly in the list, who have all been at the centre of long and discriminatory discussions on infoboxes. This page can be considered a breeding ground for infobox warring, serving as a sort of "launch pad" for infobox enforcement, enabling pro-infobox supporters to pick on articles and causing trouble, which is counterproductive.
During the past two months, there have been four large scale discussions on infoboxes, all of which have been disruptive. They are Gustav Holst, Noel Coward, Thorpe Affair, and Josephine Butler. With the exception of Butler, all are FAs and have featured no infoboxes. Sagaciousphil recently removed several articles from this list, believing that this list is unfair for targeting articles. I think this list has outstayed its welcome. I believe that Gerda stated that it was only constructed anyway for the purposes of an arb discussion. JAGUAR 18:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Sorry Gerda but there's been at least four articles targetted on this list in the last week or two. In the last two months there's actually been at least twice as many disputes. Tim and Brian are being bullied away from the project, and this list is one of the tools for doing that. Generally I support the idea of anybody doing what they want on here in the project space, but I have become increasingly concerned that Tim and Brian are being targetted, and they're two of our very best editors who we can't afford to lose. Anything which contributes towards forcing them out of this encyclopedia should be obliterated, and that includes editors who repeatedly cause a nuisance with infobox enforcement. They should be shown the door.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:43, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Concur with Dr. B. It's not happenstance that articles-particularly FAs, are hit with this conflict and many times over and over again. Boxes aren't mandatory and as seen time and again, everyone does not view them as an improvement. The rhetoric re: IBs has increased markedly since lifting of bans and restrictions in 2015 on those who were ARB sanctioned. Check the user pages of anyone who is either against infoboxes or believes they're voluntary--no one has an "anti-IB" list. We hope (talk) 18:50, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment An avid score is being kept as seen by the latest entry re: the Noël Coward infobox RFC. The edit summary says "let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing". The people who put considerable time and effort into these articles certainly are not amused. We hope (talk) 19:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Show this page to Arbcom, then delete. It seems obvious that the only purpose of this "WikiProject" is to attract editors whose purpose is to force infoboxes into articles over the objections of the principal content contributors. It seems to me clearly a violation of the spirit of the Arbcom infobox case. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:54, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the page seems indeed to be in effect an incitement to attack. Declaration of interest: a number of the articles listed on this page have involved me as a leading or significant contributor, including Chopin and Verdi (at the time when promotion to GA/FA was under way) and many of the Wagner operas. I notice btw the list interestingly doesn't include Richard Wagner, which was the source of some major Arbcom infobox-related uproar in which a number of QAI project members were involved. --Smerus (talk) 19:00, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per all the above – and yes, show it to ArbCom before it goes. Considering this list is curated by an individual who adds one infobox a day, every day. Should we make a list of these to target, or start stripping them out as having no consensus to add? As with Smerus, a number of articles on which I have worked extensively are present on the list. – Gavin (talk) 19:31, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - the very recent edit summary linked by We hope above ("actually quite amusing") is indicative of the purely disruptive purpose behind this list. I first became aware of it when a very basic article I created was added - see the article history for more details - this was followed by several instances of the article being linked on a number of editors talk pages that I can supply diffs for tomorrow once I have access to a 'proper' computer. SagaciousPhil - Chat 20:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: The page is a talk page of a project page, with an archive. It is strictly a page of reverted infoboxes, no call to any action. One user has deleted articles from the list. You can do the same, feel free. The page doesn't have to be "shown to arbcom", because it was shown several times, during the arbcom case about a feature that I am determined not to mention again this year, and now in several discussions. Thanks for the attention. Answering some points.
- The list doesn't victimise any editor because intentionally no names of editors are given.
- I stated that the list was begun for the arb case, not that it was only for it.
- Wagner is not mentioned, because the suggestion of an infobox was strictly for the talk page, not the article.
- Please simply revert articles on the list that you don't want to see there. I didn't return the ones removed before, and will not return others. Please keep the numbered ones, - the 59 reverts that the arb case should have looked into. - I am not interested in boxes, only in article quality. See also. "Letting go of the past" is a good poem, by Poeticbent. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
: - ) I'm about as convinced that you genuinely want to "let go of the past" as I am that you often don't understand English during discussions. Those were very recent additions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:33, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I add when I happen to see things. I was not aware of Solti until Brian mentioned it in the discussion you initiated for the arbitrators, Fleming came up in an RfA that closed today, Coward was changed three times today, too much to follow. Again, you can remove what disturbs you. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which is all too often Gerda. Name a day when you've not mentioned an infobox or even thought about one. It's become a deep obsession to the point that you don't care who you hurt or force out of the project. I understand why you support infoboxes but this nonsense has stepped up in recent weeks, with five articles targetted by Tim and Brian I can think of in the last week or two. Nobody deserves to have to deal with this level of bullying and harassment on a daily basis, especially people who've put in dozens of hours work to promote important subjects. You may not act belligerently, or be largely the one starting discussions and trouble, but you're pulling the strings and know exactly what is going on, and you endorse it, because you want to see infoboxews made mandatory. It puts people off wanting to contribute to wikipedia. Do you want Tim and Brian to walk out in disgust? We cannot afford to lose such editors, regardless of their outlook on infoboxes. You've lost all sense of priority and reality on here. Infoboxes are a minor issue at best, not the be all and end all on here. I cannot believe how destructive this has all become.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- I'd prefer not to mention the word infobox for the rest of the year. Will you let me? We can start today, - so I said in the case, in 2013. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
- Which is all too often Gerda. Name a day when you've not mentioned an infobox or even thought about one. It's become a deep obsession to the point that you don't care who you hurt or force out of the project. I understand why you support infoboxes but this nonsense has stepped up in recent weeks, with five articles targetted by Tim and Brian I can think of in the last week or two. Nobody deserves to have to deal with this level of bullying and harassment on a daily basis, especially people who've put in dozens of hours work to promote important subjects. You may not act belligerently, or be largely the one starting discussions and trouble, but you're pulling the strings and know exactly what is going on, and you endorse it, because you want to see infoboxews made mandatory. It puts people off wanting to contribute to wikipedia. Do you want Tim and Brian to walk out in disgust? We cannot afford to lose such editors, regardless of their outlook on infoboxes. You've lost all sense of priority and reality on here. Infoboxes are a minor issue at best, not the be all and end all on here. I cannot believe how destructive this has all become.♦ Dr. Blofeld 22:02, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) *Yet more nonsensical crap twisted and distorted by the maintainer of this "list". If it is supposedly acceptable to simply remove articles, why does that editor choose to emphasise the articles removed? Again it is worth drawing attention to the edit summary of "actually quite amusing" which demonstrates the purely disruptive intention. SagaciousPhil - Chat
This list victimizes editors by forcing them to continue to defend their editorial choices regarding no infobox for articles they edit. It steals their time, which could be spent in improving other articles or off-wiki, with friends and family. If this list is supposedly "the past", why has it been so well-maintained, including today's "let's see how many times back and forth, actually quite amusing"? We hope (talk) 21:51, 29 August 2016 (UTC)