Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:53, 22 July 2012

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 10 sections are present.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page.

Deletion request

Lost thread on ANI

Hi, could you take a look at this thread? It looks like a legitimate issue and seems to be languishing in the midst of even higher than usual levels of drama at WP:ANI. Thanks. JanetteDoe (talk) 20:19, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

I think this one is too detailed for me to get into right now. WP:WQA or WP:MEDIATION, maybe? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:33, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"The/the" request for formal mediation

FYI, I have requested formal mediation here to decide the "The/the" issue, hopefully once and for all. Feel free to add your name there if you so wish. ~ GabeMc 00:22, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

F=Dq(E+vXB) sockmaster

The blocked editor has commented back regarding what he believes the sequence of events to be: User_talk:F=q(E+v^B)#Recovery. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

WPUS discussion

Hi! You voiced a concern on the RI project page last February which I just read yesterday. It has prompted a big discussion, and I would love your input. I need to know if I'm barking up the wrong tree. The discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject United States#What is going on here?. Thanks for any input/comments.Sarnold17 (talk) 15:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

For a gracious acceptance of criticism. I think I appreciate the dilemma here. On the one hand, I think you've (hopefully inadvertently) gotten pretty good at pushing Doncram's buttons, or one might equally well say he's hypersensitive to your presence. In these circumstances, I think it's best to adapt a sort of legal or adversarial air: try to stick to the facts and say nothing unnecessary or personal, because however well-intentioned, it will undoubtedly be read as hostility. (There's also good WikiPolitics in this. e.g., a notorious pattern of interaction with some of our talented but out-of-mainstream content editors is that someone will come up and ask them a neutrally worded question. Intentionally or not, this question would provoke a loud, disruptive and emotional reaction, utterly predictable by people who knew that editor; and whether or not the person asking the question meant it maliciously, there would always be someone to blame the whole debacle on them for "poking".)

That said, I'm also fully aware of Doncram's strategy, which is to obtain mutual interaction bans with you and Orlady and carry on with his article creation without any alteration. I think it would be a huge mistake to try and protect him from scrutiny by insisting that you shouldn't comment on him at all. (The last round between the two of you, and subsequent blocks, struck me as the epitome of our dispute-resolution brokenness here: because anyone with a decent grasp of a subtle content/behavioral problem is arguably "involved" by the time they understand it, the article-creation issue never got fixed, and it wasn't until the two of you started beating on each other that someone stepped in—and completely failed to resolve the underlying issue, because we only take notice of "conduct".)

It would be nice if Dennis got a response out of him, but we've been staging Bartleby, the Scrivener for the past several years, and I'm not hopeful. I'm too weighed down in RL to sort through 10,000 diffs single-handed, but if an RFC is what we need, I'm willing to take part. I know people have suggested alternatives (userspace drafts, etc.) to him several times before, but if you need Dennis or me to offer a palette of compromises to him as a prelude to certifying an RFC, let me know. I don't want this to wind up in a place where someone glances at the latest interactions, says "Oh, Sarek/Orlady was poking this poor innocuous editor," and we lose one of you for a while because you were doggedly trying to fix his mistakes. Tell me what I can do to push dispute resolution along, and I'll try to lend a hand. Choess (talk) 02:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I suspect you're also in the too-involved-to-help category, so I'd suggest just sitting back for now and letting Dennis set up his structured environment, assuming Doncram accepts him as a neutral moderator. Then we can hopefully bring up the issues we've seen with his editing over time and see if Dennis can craft something we can all buy into. (And I know all about buttons. My big red one is WP:INVOLVED.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, having looked at WP:INVOLVED again, I think you're right. No wonder we can't resolve complex disputes without ArbCom intervention: by the time patience has run out, all participants are hopelessly involved, and an uninvolved admin is confronted with a puzzle on the order of the Schleswig-Holstein Question to absorb to render judgement. Choess (talk) 03:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: For the record

I have no idea what you're referring to. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs 12:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Game proposal

Hi Sarek. I've enjoyed editing semi-collaboratively semi-competitively in numerous past articles. I wonder if we could devise a point system and keep score somehow.

• A fix that is obvious to make, but has not been done for some period of time, gets one point.
• A non-obvious fix gets more
• Creation of an obvious article that meets a pretty good stub standard gets one point.
• Creation of a non-obvious article gets more.
• Some mechanism to avoid encouraging edit conflicts or other disruptions.
• Negative points for mistakes made.

Tallying at some work-page, point-scoring on honor system, emphasis on avoiding overhead. Abandon if not fun.

Do you like? --doncram 15:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A) That strikes me as potentially a Very Bad Idea, and B) I'm not in this to gain points, anyway -- if I were, I'd be doing the WikiCup. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:00, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

As long as we're on the subject of editing collaboratively, what do you think of Dennis Brown's offer on ANI to mediate and see if we can come to some happy medium? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, never mind, me neither. I don't have much opinion about Dennis Brown, which is probably good. But there are problems probably with any big solution / dispute resolution, whatever, including specifically what would be the scope and who would participate. I don't want to assist in there being a circus. If it is just you and me plus a mediator, the scope would be pretty limited to your behavior with respect to me and vice versa, possibly okay by me. Within that we'd have to agree to disagree about many questions that would go beyond that, and really just identify any such briefly and not even talk those out, possibly okay by me. --doncram 16:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss it directly with Dennis? He'll probably have a better idea of what is useful/feasible than I would. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:17, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I am ambivalent about replying at all. But thanks, though I don't consider C. Ferris White better work than others. It was just a simpler case to bring that one a pretty good standard. Some new architect/builder/engineer topics are thornier and require more edits, immediately or later, to bring up. The fact of this one turning out to be simple to establish to your satisfaction, is not what you might be trying to imply, but I am happy you approve nonetheless. --doncram 13:37, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI

Hi, can you please clarify this thread? Regards, GiantSnowman 16:22, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just sharing something I found really amusing. I'll remove it if nobody's commented on it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Just confused is all! GiantSnowman 16:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Does this help? :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:48, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Next time, just make a simple hyperlink. Uncle G (talk) 16:52, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid piling on, which was why I erased the reporter's name from the screenshot and didn't directly link to the explanation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

• Not sure how appropriate that was at ANI, which already has sufficient drama. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © 18:32, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Not sufficiently appropriate, I'm sure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

CT cancer risk

I have begun a discussion on the talk page. I see this adverse effect as sufficiently notable to be mentioned in the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 16:57, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Replied there, thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you revert me Sarek?

Am I not allowed to discuss this with BWilkins? I am trying to work it out so there is no bad blood moving forward. ~ GabeMc 23:42, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Once an editor says thanks to your horrific battleground behavior, further posts from you will, indeed, be removed at my leisure, continuing to post on their talkpage on the exact same subject is usually a Very Bad Thing. Especially after they already reverted you once. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I hadn't noticed that Bwilkins reverted me before you did. I won't post there again regarding this issue. Thanks. ~ GabeMc 23:53, 22 July 2012 (UTC)