Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:59, 8 March 2006

==STOP VANDALISING MY TALK PAGE!!==

READ WP:BB BEFORE U HAVE THE CHEEK TO GO TO TOWN ACCUSING PEOPLE OF VANDALISM. IF YOU DONT KNOW WHAT VANDALISM IS GO GET EDUCATED ABOUT IT FIRST!

YES I DELETED A FEW LINES ON THAT PAGE. BUT IT WASNT AN ARBITRARY DELETION. I EVEN GAVE THE REASON FOR MY DELETION IN THE EDIT SUMMARY. BOLD EDITS AND GOOD FAITH DELETIONS ARE NOT VANDALISM.

THUS FAR AND NO FURTHER!! IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY ABOUT MY DELETION, GO SAY IT ON THE TALK PAGE OF THE ARTICLE.'

Marx and Engels on Russian Revolution

Gee, Marx wasnt even consistent with his own logic if he says a revolution could happen in Russia. I didnt know that. I mean, I already thought the logic of marxism was highly flawed given more information on market operations, but man! (Gibby 18:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Gee, maybe your understanding of Marxism is incorrect! (BostonMA)

It seems like it. But feel free to edit the FMC part, contsructive criticism is welcome. Deletion is not. :P (Gibby)

Article is locked. I actually think that is a good thing at the moment.

Deletion of talk page comments on Talk:Communism

You might have asked me about it, you know. I didn't mean to delete them and did so by accident. Assume good faith, BostonMA

I did not attribute a motive for your deletion of my comment on the talk page. In the talk page, I merely pointed out that it should not be done, and when asked if anyone had done so, I simply pointed to the facts. I accept your statement that the deletion was an accident.

particularly in the case of editors who have spoken up on behalf of edits you made and attempted to get other editors to give them more attention .

I assume that your speaking up on behalf of edits I have attempted is due to at least partial agreement with those edits. I don't see that I owe you any more or any less assumption of good faith based upon agreement that you may or may not have with my POV.

You may feel hard done by some editors on Communism,

The top of the page I am currently editting reads:

that anyone can edit.

It appears as though there is a bloc of editors in Communism that believes they have the right to prevent others from editting.

but I am surprised you feel you have a problem with me.

You seem to be a member of the bloc of obstructionist editors, in part because of your reversions, and in part because you do not speak up against these reversions and in part because you have shown an unwillingness to agree to abide by principles that are designed to avoid edit wars.

I'm also very surprised that you want to make common cause with User:KDRGibby whose edits show a completely different set of concerns to your own.

One of my concerns is that articles develop NPOV. User:KDRGibby expresses a minority point of view. If his POV is significant, then it seems that it is entitled to, and deserves representation. I am concerned that the editors of Communism are insufficiently concerned with NPOV, and wish to exclude alternative POV's from expression.

KDRGibby is engaging in a full-scale revert war:

KDRGibby introduced new text. The revert war was initiated by those who reverted.

your edits are getting caught in the cross-fire. Be patient and we can all discuss them. I have said before that I think there is merit in your alternate version, and I think many of your changes ought to be included. However, first we need to get some stability back on the article. Mattley 00:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It is good that you wish stability in the article. One of the ways stability might be achieved is by establishing NPOV. Reverting the expression of minority POV's, which you condone and practice, makes it difficult to achieve NPOV. (BostonMA 20:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC))

Wikiquette

Hi Mattley. Recently, you asked Gibby to remove some items from his personal page. I would like the discussion to stay focused on NPOV, bias in content, etc. rather than be sidetracked on issues of etitquette. Therefore, I'd like to help resolve the issue you have with Gibby's personal page. If you could clarify which items you would like removed, I would be happy to relay that information to Gibby, together with an expression of my opinion that it would be helpful in keeping the discussion focused on substantive issues, if these items were removed from his page. (BostonMA 12:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

The sections I was referring to on KDRGibby's user page are those where he names several editors, User:Natalinasmpf and User:Electionworld who he feels he is 'up against':

On Misplaced Pages, Gibby is up against a few historical revisionists in the article liberalism (electionwood)who insist that issues such as the failure of markets in the great depression are a factual given and should not be questioned. Upon adding an alternative explanation as given by Hayek and Friedman those posts are deleted and called "biased"; an ironic accusation for anyone who understands what the word means...

On Communism Gibby is up against logically inconsistent editors (Natalinasmpf) that can't come up with a reason to delete a section on free trade communists while also defending why other sections like Maosim, or Lennism should remain.

Whether these constitute personal attacks may be a moot point. They are certainly not grave insults. However, they do not show a very constructive attitude on Gibby's part. It never helps to denigrate named wikipedians on one's talk page and it is worrying that Gibby sees himself as being up against particular users. I'm afraid that I don't share your optimism about resolving the dispute with Gibby and I question his motives. Comments like this and this do not bode well. As for Gibby's stated concern to work towards NPOV and his committment to NOR, have you seen what he did to Globalization and Its Discontents? Mattley 15:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for resonding. I would be happy to let Gibby know that I think it would help keep the discussion focused if he removed the two names from the comments you have listed. Regretfully, I must ask you to partially release me from the word I gave you. I cannot in good conscience ask him to remove the comments themselves, just the names. I think the comment with regard to Communism is acccurate. I think the justifications offerred for blocking Gibby's edits are logically incoherent. As for being "up against" the editors, I think that is accurate as well. Furthermore, I think it is a problem that needs to be dealt with. Based upon the title of your comment "No personal attacks" and its content "Gibby, please remove the personal attacks from your user page" I had expected something altogether different. So I would ask you to allow me to express my opinion to Gibby as follows: that removing the names would help keep the discussion on content issues rather than issues of etiquette.

I must also say, that although I do think it will help the cause of avoiding the side issue of etiquette for Gibby to remove the names, in part I am convinced that is so because Gibby did not start the practice of naming other editors on his user page, but continued the practice after his name appeared on the user page of one of the parties involved. I am also convinced that it helps the cause because negative remarks about Gibby have been made by a number of Communism editors, and it only helps his case to be more pro-active, more willing to bend over backwards to work toward resolution than the other editors seem to be. So, for that reason, I would ask Gibby to remove the two named editors.

On a final note, it is worrisome to me that you find Gibby's (imho) correct observation that he (and not only he) is "up against other editors" worrisome. If you would like me to document the comments which lend credence to such a belief, I would willingly oblige. (You may wish to look at your own comments in this thread to see where such ideas might arise.) (BostonMA 17:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

I do not agree that User:KDRGibby's behaviour is a side-issue. It is certainly not a side-issue at Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/KDRGibby, where the whole point is to invite other wikipedians to comment on his conduct. If you feel that content disputes cannot be resolved you can list them under "Article content disputes" here .

I am concerned about Gibby's comments because they are characteristic of problem editors that I have encoutered in the past. I hope Gibby will not become a problem editor, but he does seem to be fitting into that groove quite comfortably at the moment so far as I can see. That's all speculation, but you asked. You obviously do not agree with any of this, of course. I wonder what makes you think you are an appropriate person to mediate, given that you have clearly aligned yourself with KDRGibby and that you have almost no experience of this project. Why not try some editing and see how wikipedians interact with one another. Mattley 19:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

For the moment, I'm going to avoid answering your comments. If my avoidance is an issue, let me know. (BostonMA 23:36, 15 December 2005 (UTC))

No, it is not problem. Thankyou for your clarifications regarding the Maoist cabal business. If you say that isn't what you meant I'm happy to take your word for it. I do find it all a bit legalistic, though. You did state that a group of editors were 'preventing edits from being made ... by individuals outside their group' and that the edits of this group were 'consistent with the POV of the Maoists', so I think you can see where I might have got the idea from. As for cooling off, I appreciate your concern but I am perfectly cool already. If you have a look at my contributions you will see that I spent much of the evening carefully working towards an informative, NPOV, referenced version of Globalization and Its Discontents, an article I believe I mentioned to you before. Mattley 23:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Do I have to go and pull out rediculous quotes from the stiglitz book for you and then pull quotes from free market books to show how he built a straw man out of markets. You people will abuse any wiki rule to get stuff you dont like out.

calling free market advocates ideolouges, fundamentalists, and part of a washington consensus (Which in and of itself is stupid...dont even get me started) is framing the issue as a straw man. End of story!

Saying the IMF is neoliberal is just as stupid. The man wrote this book to make money not to educate anyone. It is so filled with holes...the IMF is the most keynesian oriented of the BW sisters! (Gibby 07:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

sorry for the delay

I am incredibly busy with fixing other articles. One of the reasons I didn't respond to you at first because of a running accusation that Misplaced Pages is a cabal, etc. editors are conspiring to keep their POV in - this is not the case. Stress also makes me rant and inhibits me from providing a satisfactory explanation in terms of reasoning why Gibby's entire section shouldn't be in the Communism article. But you seem particularly more civil than Gibby, so I am glad to discuss the article with you. Perhaps you could mediate this dispute between us and Gibby.

The actual thing is section editing and classification of information. It's sort of abstract to explain, but then there's Template talk:main - ie. articles are arranged from most general to most specific, and Gibby's observation of one country isn't exactly a general observation, so...

To me, what should happen, is cut the entire tone, rewrite the passage, and adapt the content to the current article, ie. rather than dumping a disjunct section. That was my main complaint. I can see the observation that a lot of current communist countries do not really have communist economies (although from the pure Kropotkinist point of view the Bolsheviks intended and were state capitalist all along, but that does not need to be mentioned)...just append this observation to the current "communism today" section. There's really no need to rant on about how special China's economic zones are - just state it has these, and this is a common feature in many "communist states". That, I will accept, and preferably just a general strengthening of a paragraph or so, perhaps with further needed elaboration at the communist state article. -- Natalinasmpf 20:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

your vote

I tried posting here earlier, but apparently it didn't go through. I am here to clarify several aspects of your vote on my RFA, which I have replied to. You might want to see it.

Firstly, it is not my nature to edit war. As I explained on the mediation cabal page, I usually perform reverts because it was my perception that the current revision threatened the immediate quality of the article to passing visitors. Furthermore it is appreciated if the factual disputes are only in one section, then it section-dispute tags only be used. Furthermore, justification for the new revision was not used. It is the current guideline that new, sweeping changes justify their change on the talk page if it is disputed, not the other way round. As I saw it, the burden was not on me to establish proof. I have never treated Gibby or you as a vandal, although I have personally perceived Gibby as a sort of a troll who liked to use personal attacks. As of 25 December, 2005, he has failed to respond to my request for mediation, a request which I initiated. I dislike discord. I dislike warring. I have always tried to resolve disputes with reason, concern and abide by guidelines and policy. I am certainly aware of the guidelines. Any violation of 3RR occurred purely out of mistake because of my perception that consensus backed the revert, and I was impatient for what eventually, would have been other editors' reversions of the page. As you see, I have not made this mistake today with User:GMB.

I have a huge backlog and workload to work on as administrator, especially concerning vandalism (which I do not list content disputes as), and copyright violations. These are all pressing issues to Misplaced Pages. I pledge not to violate my priveleges in any way, such as using them against users I have disputes with, or protecting pages I am currently involved in a dispute in. I will certainly not unblock myself. Administrators are as subject to all community review as anyone else. In short, I ask, if not entreat you to change your vote, as a fellow Wikipedian, in the hope that you will understand my plea, especially as my violation of the 3RR was shortsighted and will never happen again. -- Natalinasmpf 02:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Requests for adminship/Natalinasmpf

Hi, I'm not sure what you were trying to do here, but the end result was the you accidentally duplicated the whole section. I reverted your edit, so please edit the change you wanted on that page. Thanks! Owen× ☎ 04:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, Natalinasmpf just fixed it. Owen× ☎ 04:08, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for fixing this. I apologize for screwing it up. I'm not sure exactly what happened. Tried to fix it, but you guys beat me to it. Thanks. (BostonMA 04:13, 25 December 2005 (UTC))

Category:Marxist Wikipedians

We always need more members :-). Of course, I'm only guessing. I suppose your name suggests you're in MA too, which has a Category:Wikipedians in Massachusetts. So much in common, perhaps. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:40, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

RFAr against KDRGibby

I am in the process of filing an RFAr against KDRGibby. You may or may not, wish to be listed as an involved party. I have no idea what stance you will take, but his behaviour has thoroughly degenerated, in my opinion, to the extent of calling certain Wikipedians "assholes", and now has rejected mediation, twice. Let us put aside our past differences, and with 172 and agree that this behaviour is generally abrasive and unacceptable? Please correspond to me on this matter concerning your wish to be involved or not. -- Natalinasmpf 07:35, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe it was 2 admins who blocked me for not violating wiki revert rules. I've carefully read over them multiple times and have found that undeleting sections in disagrement is not vandalism, and that the definition of revert tells us that the page must be returned to a previous state...thus editing sections is not a violation of this rule. The namecalling, while inappropriate, flares out after you Nati, put an NPOV on my section, refused to discuss it, then had me blocked 10 minutes later on tenuous grounds. Editing to make a section fit is not a 3revert violation.

If you don't see why I dont want mediation with you or anyone else, let me fill you in. It is because you all violate the rules so blatantly, abuse privilages, and use thuggish ganglike behavior to overwhelm dissenting opinions with reverts...I wont get a fair mediation. Not to mention you (nati) have failed to come up with a logically consistant reason why my section should not be included and have in the last month made no attempt to continue any discussion or compromise beyond complaining about me. Period end of story. (Gibby 09:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Gibby is again trying to twist the definition of a "revert", which is clearly undoing another editor's actions, which deletion is comprised thereof. A mediation is done by a third party. I have given what I feel are legitimate objections to the material using guidelines (Misplaced Pages:Summary), but of course Gibby may call it logically consistent just because Gibby obviously wants his section to be included. I have avoided making personal attacks but I think it is time I say that it is Gibby, not me, who has a vested interest. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 11:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Natalinasmpf, you raise several issues that I would like to address. I'm in somewhat of a rush, so I will not provide diffs, but if you would like, I will add diffs later.

The first issue I'd like to address is the 3RR. Please put aside Gibby for a moment and just think of the rule. If editor A makes an edit, then editor B deletes it with an objection, then editor A makes a new edit which he/she believes in good faith satisfies the objection raised by B, and say this process is repeated, perhaps with new editors reverting A's edits and making new objections, would A be violating the 3RR rule upon his/her 4th edit?

172 made a valid observation (diff) that editors may have a number of objections to a particular edit and that it is not necessary that those editors voice all of their objections at once. That is valid. However, the other side of the coin is that an editor who is attempting good faith compromises should not be held to have made reverts merely for introducing "objectionable" edits for which the objections have not yet been raised.

Do you agree with this reasoning or not? Again, I would like for the moment for you to put aside Gibby, and just try to focus on the reasoning I just gave.

The second issue I'd like to address is the issue of personal attacks. I would like you to again set aside your opinions of Gibby, and for the moment at least, set aside the question of whether any particular comment warrants administrative actions under the no personal attacks rule. Isn't the essence of a personal attack the making of a negative comment about an someone as an individual? Now, you say that you have made no personal attacks against Gibby. That may or may not be true according to the rules of Misplaced Pages. However, haven't you made negative remarks about Gibby as an individual? For example, do you see that stating the Gibby has a vested interest is a negative remark? I would like to know your opinion on the meaning of personal attacks. Again, I'd like you to set aside whether you think Gibby has made personal attacks and ask yourself whether you have made personal attacks against Gibby? I would also ask whether you think 172 has made personal attacks, or Mattley? (I apologize for the lack of diffs).

What is it that you are trying to accomplish with your request for arbitration? You may ban Gibby, but I would guess that until the communism article is written in a way that all POV's are satisfied, there will be more editors who want to change it. Some may be more abrasive than others. Do you expect to fight this fight forever? Why not take advantage of the present conflict, not to make the point that rude language should not be tolerated, but to incorporate another POV into the article?

I believe that a step in the right direction would be to put an NPOV tag in the article itself. What do you say to that?

--BostonMA 13:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel this is a content or stylistic dispute, not a neutrality dispute. If anything, a cleanup tag perhaps. Anyhow, the supposed content has already been integrated. Yet Gibby still continues to want to antagonise me. I have never accused Gibby of vested interests until that point, and that was only because to demonstrate my fatigue of him accusing me of vested interests of, I don't know, fifty times? Perhaps, that was a WP:POINT, but a very minor one as I see it. I have refrained from using any ad hominems, unlike Gibby has done. I have made very little attacks on his character, although I have heavily criticised his statements, which I feel are not personal attacks. He in contrast, calls me an "illogical editor" and "logically inconsistent" while I have always addressed him in content. I feel that Gibby is an exception: I have had many disputes on the communism article before, but I have always resolved them peacefully, and they have not escalated to a level such as this. I am going to corroborate this request on a user subpage. I have not seen any reason why not to file an RFAr. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Re. Honorifics

No, you were doing just fine! I converted to "proposal", so that other wikipedians might get involved and give feedback.

See also intro of category:Misplaced Pages proposals - maybe best to advertise your proposal on the "official" spot too, as indicated there. --Francis Schonken 15:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

exceptional newcomer

Your Mediation Cabal request re. Communism

Dear BostonMA: I have been recently looking over the Mediation Cabal case queue, and noticed no further mediator comments on the Mediation Cabal request page for this issue. Is there still an active dispute? A cursory glance over the Communism article does not, to me, appear to indicate any current content dispute. I would be most grateful if you would please let me know whether mediation is still required or not. The Mediation Cabal request page is at Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/11 12 2005 Natalinasmpf on Communism. Best regards, --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

KDRGibby

The request for arbitration concerning this user has been filed at Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#KDRGibby. You may, or may not, want to make a statement. I'm very, very, sorry it had to turn out this way. Had it been on communism alone, I would have tolerated it, but I see many other users are antagonised by his behaviour too. As a third party, you may have insights into the dispute. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 10:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Re:olive branch with Gibby

My rationale for arbitration was to force some sort of action for Gibby to change. Remedies are not merely blocking: they may include placing mentorship or parole, or limiting the editor to one revert every 24 hours on certain pages, except for vandalism. Arbitration is again, just dispute resolution, and consequences and a judgment of the dispute. Sometimes the law doesn't put drug addicts in jail, or does so very minimally, but sends them on forced rehabilitation.

Unless the editor is absolutely inconstructive, a total ban is unlikely to occur. It is a form of tough love, arguably. By "we" I meant all the editors he listed as "bullies", etc. He's calling us out, so I wanted to declare we were not trying to bully him, and it would be very sad if he indeed left the project because he has legitimate complaints. He just brings them up in the wrong manner. Elle _{vécut heureuse} (Be eudaimonic!) 16:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

History

All I can say is read through the talk pages and archives at Conspiracy theory and Misplaced Pages:Words to avoid. Your inquiry is perfectly reasonable, and I mean no disrespect to you when I say I mean to pour no more of my time into talking with or about Zen-master. Best regards, Tom Harrison 21:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar

Hi, while I complement your enthusiasm in creating Ravi Shankar (disambiguation), I am sorry to say that it has been misguided in moving Ravi Shankar to Ravi Shankar (musician). I understand that you are new, hence this msg with examples. Usually, when a dab (i. e. disambiguation) page is of the form ], then ] would only have a link to the ] disambiguation page at the top. Instead, if the dab page is of the form ], then we would have articles such as ] etc. So, in this case, moving of "Ravi Shankar" to "Ravi Shankar (musician)" is wrong. I would revert your changes after a week if I do not hear from you. Meanwhile, please desist from changing "Ravi Shankar" to "Ravi Shankar (musician)" on countless articles as un-doing it would take a lot of time, which can be better spent on improving the encyclopedia. --Gurubrahma 17:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I too felt that my message may not have been very clear. Ok, consider this. X is a famous musician. There are two more X's, one a politician and another an actor. The article X currently points to the musician. I will use two scenarios here.

The first scenario: Let us assume that the musician X is more popular for the moment. There are 100 editors linking to X in their articles. As the musician is more popular, 80 of these links intend to point to the actual musician and hence point to the right article, so, no problem. 15 of them intend to point to the politician and 5 to the actor but as X points out to the musician, these links are wrong and need to be fixed. So, we have a 20% probability tht the article would point to the wrong person. If we have a X which is not about the musician but is a dab page saying that there are three famous people named X and the editors believe wrongly (as they would not know what a dab is) that X would point to the respective articles they are intending to, then all the 100 editors would make a mistake. In such a scenario, X should point to the musician.

The second scenario: All the three X's are almost equally popular. So, in this case, of the 100 editors, 35 are to point to the musician, 33 to the politician and 32 to the actor. Here, we will have the probability that 33+32=65% of the time, the article would go to the wrong person. So, here X should be not the page about the musician but about different people named X. While here also, ppl. may link to the article with names, it can be easily fixed by regular editors through projects such as Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Disambiguation because the cost of having 65% error is higher than some regular editors correcting it. However, regular editors correcting it would be a waste of time in the first scenario when potential for error is just 20%. Also, please read Misplaced Pages:Disambiguation.

My solution - leave Ravi Shankar (disambiguation) as it is (it's a fine effort, by the way). Move back Ravi Shankar (musician) to Ravi Shankar. Revert your changes to multiple articles, and finally, delete the redirect of Ravi Shankar (musician). My rationale is that the musician is popular and that Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, though popular, is never addressed as "Ravi Shankar" but only as "Sri Sri..." I am away for the next week. You may want to take a second opinion from some one like User:Commander Keane who is active in dab issues. --Gurubrahma 18:31, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello BostonMA. You have some very good points and ultimately this will be a tricky descision - governed by consensus that will be sought on the talk page of the article. Responding to what you wrote on my talk page, one more thing to consider (which I think Gurubrahma may have pointed out) is the cost the the reader. If the sitar player is the intended target for Ravi Shankar 90% of the time (and Ravi Shankar is where the article about the sitar player is) then 90% of the time a reader will turn up in the right location. 10% of the time a reader will have to think then click twice, once to Ravi Shankar (disambiguation) and then to their desired person. If Ravi Shankar redirects to Ravi Shankar (disambiguation) then 100% of the time a reader has to click once - to get to their desired person.

So we have two choices, your model and Gurubrahma's model. I can't tell which one is better - both have advantages and disadvantages (at the moment I am liking your idea, since the possibility for confusion, mentioned in your appendum, is worrysome). What we need to do is have a discussion with as many people as possible and then form a consensus about what to do. This will take place at Talk:Ravi_Shankar. It will also be a good idea to drop a few notices about the discussion in the appropriate places - eg maybe Misplaced Pages:Indian Wikipedians' notice board etc. I need to sleep now. If you haven't started the discussion by tomorrow I'll do it for you. Have a nice day.--Commander Keane 20:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my mistake

Hi, I'm not sure how I did it, but I accidentally editted the wrong page, a template. I couldn't figure out how to correct it, but you managed to. Thanks. --BostonMA 18:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That was my fault, I forgot to subst an ArbCom special use template. My bad. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Tamil disambig

Hey no problem... I just noticed it on the disambig page. Actually, many of the cinema ones are not too bad.  ;-) --Deville 18:09, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Incidentally, I have found that Misplaced Pages:Tools/Navigation popups is a pretty solid reversion tool. I figured you might be interested. --Deville 00:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the intructions look tough, but in reality it's not too difficult to set it up. If you need any help or pointers on it, let me know. Incidentally, I'm guessing you're in or from Boston? I went there for school myself. --Deville 02:47, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Bill of Rights, etc

First of all, I want to thank you for your comments in various disputes in which I have been involved here recently. I should have responded more quickly, but I wanted to couple my thanks to my response to your request for input on the proposed "Bill of Rights." My response (which has ended up being a full-length, extensive and extensively revised draft proposal) took much longer than I had anticipated to complete. I'm placing the draft on the talk page of the "Bill of Rights"/User prerogatives proposal; I hope you find it useful in continuing/reopening the discussion. If you think another location would be more suitable, please feel free to move it wherever you see fit. Best, Monicasdude 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; it looks like I lost some text cutting and pasting. I think I've fixed it now. Monicasdude 22:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Sorry, for meddling... I would appreciate if you add an email address to your account so that I can communicate with you privately.

Please stop the conversation on this page. I will start a section in the mediation page for sources. --BostonMA 23:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me, including wikistalking, because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just launched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct. I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks!--Mr j galt 06:08, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Districts of India

I saw you changing from "X district" to "X District" . Maybe you like to join the supporters of "X District". Talk:List_of_Indian_districts#X_District . best regards Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

BUZZ OFF!!

next time i see predominant in brackets next to tamil on the BN page...am editing it...how convenient of you not to notice the word 'predominant' and bring it back....

and btw...stop desecrating my talk page with your worthless poop....

buzz off and mind your business. (previous unsigned commment by 67.174.232.187)

Thank you for making a good faith, constructive edit on your second attempt. Because I see that you have done so, I will remove the warning template. --BostonMA 12:44, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

You offered to mediate on Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Sathya Sai Baba; although we generally only assign members of the Mediation Committee to mediations, we have accepted your offer. Please familiarize yourslef with Misplaced Pages:Mediation, contact the parties involved, and keep the committee informed of the progress of the mediation via the mediation subage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Sathya Sai Baba. Thank you for your interest in mediation, and good luck; if there is anything I or the other committee members can do to help you, please do not hesitate to ask.

For the Mediation Committee, Essjay , Chairman, 13:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do you invite Jossi?

As far as I am aware Jossi is not a party to the mediation. Andries 03:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not. Just an editor that cares about NPOV and that inititated the request for mediation. BostonMA: if you believe that my participation in the mediation page is not helpful, please say so. I can make my comments directly to your via private email. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation:Sathya Sai Baba

So where do things head from here? Jossie has seen the SSB page through many phases. It appears Willmcw does not help moderate the page anymore. So I think Jossie's presence is entirely appropriate. He is also more experienced than Thaumaturgic and myself and knows more than either of us. I think he should be allowed to be a party in the mediation. SSS108 03:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the confidence, but I am not a party to the mediation. See my comment above. If you need my assistance with any questions you may have about Misplaced Pages content policies, and dispute resolution practices, you may do so via private email. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 18:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Ravi Shankar

I'm sorry that you were offended, but I don't believe that my comments at Talk:Ravi Shankar were in any way inappropriate. I didn't call you names or use foul language, and I didn't misrepresent your actions, since the fact of the matter is that the first time around you moved the page and altered all the links, despite a not insignificant amount of opposition from myself and others. I admit to being relatively annoyed with you for doing so, and that may have come through in my comments, but that alone doesn't warrant striking out or removing anything. Microtonal 23:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The "significant opposition" from yourself included the statement "I don't see any harm in what you propose". My understanding of consensus is not that everyone necessarily agrees, but that everyone can live with a particular decision. I'm sorry if I misconstrued your comment as implying a lack of a strong objection. The other objections were equally mild. If there had been a strong objection, I would not have taken the actions I did.

Your comments state:

"I stated that this was a pointless move the first time the issue came up, but you went ahead and did it anyway."

However, I made the move after an extensive discussion in which I sought consensus, and observed no strong objections after several days. You also write:

"Yes, BostonMA, disambiguation and redirects always cause problems for editors, but I don't think it's at all fair of you to appeal to editor-friendliness as a reason for moving articles around when you're the one who changed all the links to Ravi Shankar (musician) in the first place, thus instigating the entire problem. And quite unnecessarily so, IMO."

In this statement, you claim that I "intigated" "the entire problem", and "unnecessarily". If you are unwilling to remove this statement, could you please explain what problems were experienced, and how I was the cause of these problems? Thanks. --BostonMA 23:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Please don't misquote or quote-mine me. I'm not one to take offense easily, but misrepresenting what I've said is pretty much the only way to really piss me off. To wit, the phrase "not insignificant" is in absolutely no way equivocable to "significant", and you'll find that my statement "I don't see any harm in what you propose" was followed immediately by "but I also don't see the need for it." I'd like to add that I was attempting to be diplomatic, there, but apparently I did not make my true opinion of your proposed move clear.

Please do not take offence. I did not intentionally misquote you. Perhaps my comprehension of English is not as good as yours, but I did not see the difference between what I wrote and what you wrote, and will probably require someone to explain it to me. Be that as it may, I understood that you followed the statement I quoted with "but I also don't see the need for it". I realize you were neither agreeing with me, nor supporting my actions. However, I interpretted your statement in light of my (possibly flawed) understanding of how consensus works on Misplaced Pages. My understanding was that everyone need not agree, provided everyone can live with the result. I do not think you needed to throw a temper tantrum. However, you could have said "I think the proposed change would be harmful". That would have been clear. (I do not fault you if we miscommunicated, as that is part of life.)

It isn't necessary for a proposed change to be harmful, only that it be unnecessary or just generally unwanted. I think that most commentors made their disagreement clear, and I personally believe that unrestrained use of redirects and dabs is, in fact, harmful when viewed in the aggregate. As someone else (I've forgotten who) already said, the ideal Misplaced Pages would have absolutely no redirects or dab pages, since they're a fundamental waste of server resources. Anything we, as editors, can do to get closer to that ideal should be actively pursued.

As for the difference between "not insignificant" and "significant", think of the difference between "more than zero" and "one million".

Now, to the point: From the discussion I see at Talk:Ravi Shankar, it appears that the majority of posters (Wasted Time R, Silence, Natalya, Zoe, William Allen Simpson and myself) actually disagreed with you, both prior to your first move and again the second time around. The fact that no one threw a temper-tantrum about it in no way mitigates the fact that few users, if any at all, thought the page should be moved according to your proposal. Understand that I am not accusing you of moving the page in bad faith, I simply think that you did so in bad judgement. The fact that you "sought consensus" does not mean that a consensus was actually reached, and the fact that you did not perceive a "strong objection" does not mean that there was no objection.

I understand.

As for the problem itself, I'm talking about the same one you are: the existence of allegedly "ambiguous" links to Ravi Shankar. Yes, that's a minor problem, and perhaps a slight inconvenience for the casual editor who may or may not know how to use the "what links here" special page effectively, but the absolute LAST thing you should do when faced with "ambiguous" links is to create an entire new article. By doing so, you have increased the potential for ambiguous links, rather than decreased it, because more pages equate to more chances to get the link wrong. This is particularly true when the page you want to be the "main article" is a dab page or has a parenthetical title. You're going to find that most editors, when linking Ravi Shankar, are never going to write ], and you're just going to have to go through and fix all those new links, anyway. In every case, it is the link that is wrong, not the article that is being linked, and that is what should be fixed. Leaving Ravi Shankar as the main article and dispensing entirely with Ravi Shankar (musician) and Ravi Shankar (disambiguation) (at least until they become absolutely necessary, which doesn't seem likely) is going to cause all of us significantly less link-fixing work in the long run. It also has the advantage of not being blatantly and arbitrarily contrary to Misplaced Pages dab policy.

You say that "the problem itself" is the same one that I am referring to. However, then you continue by talking about "ambiguous links", and some other stuff about inconvenience to a casual editor. There seem to be two things here, the problem that you perceive that I have caused, and the problem that I have set out to solve. I would like to know more about the problem you believe I have caused, because I really do not understand it. If a naive editor makes a link to Ravi Shankar which is a redirect page to Ravi Shankar (musician), neither the naive editor is inconvenienced nor is a reader of the Misplaced Pages inconvenienced, unless I am missing something (which is quite possible). People who have an objection to redirects on principle will be put out, but there are many, many redirects and I don't see how they are harmful, as long as the redirects are not multiple redirects. Redirects allow users to reach the same page using many different queries, and this, I would think is an advantage to users. You state that most editors will write Ravi Shankar rather than Ravi Shankar (musician). But that is in most cases what I want. If you don't want to fix the links, you don't have to, and everything still works, however, if you are like me, and want to find the cases where a link to Ravi Shankar should actually have gone to Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, or to some other person who may not have an article, then it is very valuable to know which links have been researched, and which have not. Consider for a moment how it works with regular dab pages. We know that links to the dab page have not been checked, but links to the actual articles probably have. Fixing the links removes them from the list to be fixed the next time around. The difference between a link to a dab page and the case with Ravi Shankar pointing to Ravi Shankar (musician) is that links to dab pages are an inconvenience, whereas links to a redirect page are transparent.

It is not a matter of convenience or inconvenience, for you or for any other editor. It is a matter of arbitrarily and unnecessarily creating a page that no one but you wants, in direct contravention of Misplaced Pages policy on redirects and disambiguation.

In short, had you not created Ravi Shankar (musician), there would have been absolutely no need for you to pipe all of those Ravi Shankar links to point there, and there wouldn't now be a need for someone to go and fix all of those links so that they point back to Ravi Shankar. And if the article is located at Ravi Shankar (musician) there will always be a need for someone to keep watch over new links to Ravi Shankar and pipe them accordingly. If it isn't, that entire problem never even arises. Microtonal 01:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, I think we see different problems. You see my piping the Ravi Shankar links as a burden, which I unfortunately created by having Ravi Shankar (musician). I do not, because I believe there will always be a need for someone to watch over new links to Ravi Shankar. The links that had already been created demonstrate that people will link to Ravi Shankar, even when the person meant is not the musician. This will continue to happen, and it will continue to need correcting. The question is are we going to make it easier on those who do the correcting, or are we going to make it harder. I can appreciate the argument that the needs of the end users and the needs of the editors outweigh the needs of link-fixers. But I have yet to hear exactly how an editor or an end user is inconvenienced. If you could explain that to me, I would be very grateful.

The problem with redirects is that the Wikimedia servers have to dedicate processor time to handling them. That processor power is not unlimited, and we, as editors, are obligated to do anything that we can do to reduce that strain. Creating unnecessary and arbitrary redirects such as this one is not only against Misplaced Pages dab policy, but also causes undue stress on the servers that run the Misplaced Pages. If you view it only one page at a time, it doesn't seem like such a big deal, but if you think about it occuring across the entire Misplaced Pages, it adds up. There are tens of thousands of dab pages and redirects on Misplaced Pages, each one wasting precious system resources and slowing down the servers for everyone. We should be reducing their numbers, not creating new ones.

On a final note, your comments about me in the Ravi Shankar talk page, may or may not be accurate. That is not the point. They are hurtful to me, and I would be very thankful if you would remove them. --User:BostonMA 02:40, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not Misplaced Pages policy, nor should it be, to remove talk page comments for any reason, regardless of how anyone feels about them. And personally, I don't believe that you're justified in even asking that they be removed unless they constitute blatant and abusive personal attacks, which my comments most certainly do not. Microtonal 04:48, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for signing my manifesto. Direct and comments, questions or concerns to my talk page or the manifesto's talk page. Thanks again. Also, look at the newsflash on my userpage, as well as MarkSweep's attempt to take it out in my page history. The Ungovernable Force 08:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

my comment to Zora

I fail to see how my comment to Zora is of any interest to you. It was not directed to you, nor to the public at large, it has been reviewed by the arbcom, and I have commented upon it on the arbitration case talkpage. I am not prepared to discuss it any further just because you feel like it. I am here for the "encyclopedia" part, not for the wikilawyering or the discussion club. dab (ᛏ) 16:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment here. Although your comment to Zora was not directed to me personally, it nevertheless might be deemed insulting by a large number of people. Arbcom chose not to de-sysop you for the comment. That, however, does not mean that you have not damaged your relationship with a large number of people. I am also here to write an encyclopedia. However, that does not mean that I must accept language such as yours without comment. If you do not wish to discuss this further, that is your choice. The consequences of your choice are your own responsibility. Sincerely, BostonMA 17:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I will only say that you appear to be reading something into my comment that was never intended. Possibly because you are looking at it out of context. At no point was I making a comment about a people in general. I was making comments about editors after severe provocation, editors who were subsequently banned by the arbcom. At the time of the comment I was comically picturing these people sitting in an internet cafe in a dusty desert village grinding their teeth as they stare across the border to hated Pakistan. If you cannot see the humour in this comment, I guess I can just repeat that I never made it to you and that I'm under no obligation to reconstruct the exact context for your benefit. And yes, I can take responsibility for my own utterings, and it is not unheard of that I apologized for comments that in retrospect I considered unsuitable. The behaviour of the editors I have been commenting on here was so extremely bad (as the arbcom has since agreed), that I do not feel that I have anything to apologize about in this case. I might addd that I find it irritating that you appear to consider yourself on some peacekeeping or policing mission on Misplaced Pages, taking it for granted that people will be prepared to regurgitate months old discussions to satisfy you. dab (ᛏ) 18:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I see you have returned. Good! You say that I appear to be reading something into your comment that was not intended. Please imagine that I have run down the hallways of my university waving my arms about, and in the course of this, I strike several people in the face. I would hope that even though I was so thoughtless as to strike someone, that I would be thoughtful enough to

• acknowledge the thoughtlessness of my behavior,
• inquire whether I had hurt anyone,
• inquire if there were something I could do to compensate for my offensive behavior,
• apologize.

I hope that I would not take on an air of indignation towards those who might be angry with me or who might have found my behavior offensive. That is how I would like to behave. That road has been open to you as well, but so far you have avoided it. I am not the only one to find your remarks offensive. Sincerely BostonMA 01:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

well, if I ever slap you in the face accidentially, I will be sure to apologize. Also, if you were to read something unintended into a comment I made to you, I would apologize and attempt to rephrase. As it is, as a gesture of good faith, I tried to describe the context of my comment to you even though it bears no relation to you. As it is, I did not so much run up to you and slap you in the face, but you came up to me, rummaged in my old correspondence, and pulled out a fragment of a drawn-out discussion, delighted to have found something to be offended at, and then came to my talkpage talking down to me as if I was a difficult child. So far, no-one has condescended to explain to me explicitly what part of my comment they find offensive, so I am reduced to guessing what may be read into it. If you want to continue this discussion (feel free to drop it, too), you will come to my talkpage again and detail explicltly what part of my comment you are offended at for what reason. If you feel called to pass judgement on my behaviour, read the entire case. Read the archives on Talk:Rajput. Read the "RfC" the trolls came up with, including the community reaction. Read my entire summary at the arbitration case. Observe the chronology. I was called "racist bigot whiteboy" before I even got annoyed. My reaction was extremely moderate in comparison. In my comments, I was being unfriendly to a group of editors who had shown extreme contempt for Misplaced Pages rules and other editors, including me. I was unfriendly to no-one else. My take on these editors was confirmed by the arbcom. I see no reason to apologize to them, and I see no reason to apologize to people I have never even referred to or addressed. If you read up on the case and get specific, I am prepared to reply to you again, but I would be grateful if you could also reconsider your condescending attitude. If you simply continue to be offended for some unspecified reason, implying that I'm a bully or a moron, we will have to live with that as I'm not desperate enough to be liked by absolutely everybody. dab (ᛏ) 10:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you have slapped all Indians in the face, and indeed more than that. You complain that no one has explained to you explicitly what is offensive in your comments. Perhaps you have not made inquiries to those you have offended? However, you cannot complain that no-one stated that they were offended , , or that they thought your comments were an expression of contempt for Indian users , , , . For the benefit of all, however, I will attempt to explain why your comments are offensive. Substitute another place for India in your comments. Say for example Harlem in New York. Now reread your comments with this substitution.

"it is pointless to waste time with them, because even if you get them to listen to sense, there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in (fill in the blank), every sh*thole is getting internet access."

Do you begin to see how offensive that is? Perhaps not. Perhaps you should try substituting "Warsaw" into your phrase. You state that your remarks were only meant to disparage a small group of people. However, if that is so, what need is there to mention the fact that they are from India?

Your response to me seems to be arguing that I should not take offense because you believe that there are circumstances where such remarks should not be treated as offensive. The first attempt at this is to intimate that if your remarks had remained private, they would have been OK. It is true that if your remarks had remained private, there might have been no-one to take offense. That does not make your remarks unoffensive however, just unknown. You say your comments were not addressed to me and accuse me of rummaging through your old correspondence. First of all, I did not rummage through your correspondence, and did not even know who you were. I ran accross your comments while reading Jimbo's talk page . There is some irony in the fact that you posted your comments on the internet where they may be read by all, and then act indignant that that someone "rummaged through your old correspondence". But whether or not your privacy was invaded by someone reading your publicly available correspondence misses the point that your comments would be offensive whether or not they were brought to the light of day. Your response also seems to argue that the indefensible behavior of some editors with whom you were in conflict somehow justifies your own indefensible behavior. The answer to that I hope is obvious. I outlined a road you could take in my last response to you. The choice is yours. --BostonMA 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Addendum: You wrote "read the entire case" and "My take on these editors was confirmed by the arbcom." Yes, arbcom confirmed your take with regard to the other editors. However arbcom also voted 4/3/1 on the following statement:

Dbachmann has expressed his contempt for Indian users of Misplaced Pages, saying "there are millions of more clueless people where they came from, and especially in India, every sh*thole is getting internet access. I feel for these people, because they are in an actual ethnic conflict, and must feel actual hate, but I don't feel responsible for babysitting them, Misplaced Pages is not for them.

Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Rajput/Proposed decision#Expression of ethnic contempt by Dbachmann

So please be careful not to insinuate that ArbCom approves of your comments. --BostonMA 03:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

well, if it appeases you, I can state here and now that I have no contempt for anyone on ethnic grounds, and that I do not believe that there is a larger fraction of stupid or hateful people in India than in my own or in any other country. "they" in my comments, I hope it is obvious, refers to fanatical Rajputani Hindu nationalists, not to "Indians" in general, so I really don't see what you want. My contempt is for fascists and religious or nationalist fanatics, regardless of ethnos, and I will not apologize for that. I said the arbcom reviewed my comment, I never imagined they endorse it in any way, nor do I need the arbcom to endorse every comment I make. Again, I do not see why I should be answerable to you in particular, or who made you the WP PC-patrol. I think I have made my point, and so have you, so as far as I am concerned, you are free to be offended all you like, but I think this discussion is over. dab (ᛏ) 15:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

BostonMA, I was just curious where things stand on the Sathya Sai Baba mediation process? There has been no activity or comments for almost a week. Any reason? Thanks SSS108 16:56, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

BostonMA, the SSB article took years to develop the way it is standing now. I am aware that the recommendation is to use Nagel's outdated Dutch language 1994 article, but that takes time. Using non-English language sources takes a lot of time, because the used sentences have to be translated according to Misplaced Pages policies. See Misplaced Pages:verifiability. Andries 19:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Andries, and for years, the Sathya Sai Baba has been thoroughly biased. No one cared to translate Alexandra Nagel's article although it was on the page about a year. BostonMA, I am asking to be excused from the mediation process. I feel SSS108's stance adequately represents my own. I am going on vacation for several weeks and do not want to be logging in and making comments during that time. Thank you very much. Thaumaturgic 05:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Med Cabal

No, I just had a really bad day on WP, and I didn't have the time for it anyway. Karmafist 04:48, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I will answer all outstanding questions this weekend

BostonMA, I will answer all outstanding questions this weekend. Please note that I have already implemented the agreements about e.g. Nagel as a source to a great extent. I have not touched most of the parts that Moreno insists on having in the article, even if they did not follow policies at all, because experience has shown that he reverts anything that I delete so that would be waste of time. Andries 21:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Greetings

Thank you for your greetings - let the colors of Holi permeats all the segements of Misplaced Pages to make it truly reflective of the sum total of human knowledge. I completely agree with the comments on your page. Please see this also. Thanks again for your support and kind words: yes, you conveyed very silently the crux of the issues without creating any noise. I also thank you for your kind words and support during my gloomiest wiki-mood. My current Status is: Highly active Wikipedian as Misplaced Pages is a part of my life!!! Perhaps, I may be disappointing few by being so hyperactive, but I cannot loose so many friends by remaining not so active. I love you Misplaced Pages as I love her!!! --Bhadani 09:38, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Minor heads-up

I corrected a minor spelling mistake on your user page despite the notice to not edit it because I feel that a fine Wikipedian needs a fine user page. --Gurubrahma 16:43, 5 March 2006 (UTC)