| Revision as of 07:04, 26 August 2010 editWolfkeeper (talk | contribs)31,832 edits →Word articles← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:56, 10 December 2024 edit undoBearian (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, New page reviewers, Rollbackers86,045 edits →Viewing instrument: ReplyTags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply | ||
| (129 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}} | ||
| |maxarchivesize = 70K | |maxarchivesize = 70K | ||
| |counter = |
|counter = 6 | ||
| |minthreadsleft = 1 | |minthreadsleft = 1 | ||
| |algo = old(10d) | |algo = old(10d) | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| == ] of ] == | |||
| <div style="margin-bottom:1ex; text-align: left; padding: 1em; border: solid 2px darkblue; background-color: lightblue"><font color="darkblue">'''Hi, please click''' '''if you want to leave a new message'''</div></font> | |||
| ]] has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at ].<!--Template:Tfdnotice--> ] (]) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Hi, now that ] is a disambiguation page, could you clean up per ]? Thanks, --]] 10:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| You defended this list’s existence as encyclopedic, attacking those who attacked you, and you implied that you could and would fix the problems. 15 years it’s been unsourced. If you’re a serious person, you should fix the problems you create. Please source this. ] (]) 01:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| == August 2010 == | |||
| <div class="user-block"> ] You have been ''']''' from editing for a period of '''1 week''' for ] against consensus on ] pages. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to ]. If you would like to be unblocked, you may ] by adding below this notice the text <!-- Copy the text as it appears on your page, not as it appears in this edit area. Do not include the "tlx" argument. -->{{tlx|unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the ] first. ] (]) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)</div><!-- Template:uw-block --> | |||
| :@], please see ]. ] (]) 07:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=The administrator SarekOfVulcan appears to be harassing me and is abusing his administrator bit. The principle of the wikipedia is that making bold changes to policy is acceptable, and the proposed change I made to the deletion policy is completely inline with the other policies of the Misplaced Pages and the general way that this policy is actually used in AFDs, even before any previous changes. The edit was not a repeat of any previous edits I have made, nor is it in any way disruptive.|decline=Blaming SarekofVulcan will not get your block lifted early. Please write an unblock request that discusses your behavior, not the actions of ]. You may want to read the ] for pointers. <font color="darkorange">]</font><b><font color="midnightblue"><big>]</big></font></b><font color="red">]</font> 01:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| ::Thanks. ] (]) 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| {{unblock reviewed|1=The principle of the wikipedia is that making bold changes to policy is acceptable, and the proposed change I made to the deletion policy is completely inline with the other policies of the Misplaced Pages and the general way that this policy is actually used in AFDs, even before any previous changes. The edit was not a repeat of any previous edits I have made, nor is it in any way disruptive. Blocking people for long periods based simply on having had a stable account in the Misplaced Pages is unjust and simply encourages people to abandon accounts.|decline=No evidence the user understands that they actually did anything wrong, and no promise to cease said behaviour if unblocked. ] - <b><FONT COLOR="#FF0000">St</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF5500">ar</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FF8000">bli</FONT><FONT COLOR="#FFC000">nd</FONT></b> 02:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)}} | |||
| :Note: These , are probably what need to be explained. | |||
| :HTH, I'm only posting this because I think your latest unblock request is probably not what they're wanting from you (ie, something conciliatory). -- ] (]) 01:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::This is a bad block. I simply haven't done 3 reverts in 24 hours, and while you can be blocked for less than that the edit I was apparently blocked on wasn't even a revert according to the 3rr policy. A revert is when you return the page to an earlier state. This wasn't such an edit, it was considerably different. It's also significant that SarekofVulcan reverted the edit, that means he used his administrative powers as well as his editing in a particular situation. He can only do one or the other. SarekofVulcan is clearly well out of order, and this is going to have to come up on ANI. People have lost their adminstrator bits for this kind of thing.- <small>]</small> 01:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::Edit warring isn't limited to 3 reverts spaced over 24 hours each, and neither is a revert strictly defined as a specific restoration of an earlier version of a page. It is also defined as an action which reverses the actions of other editors in whole or in part. Please see ].— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::In case I wasn't clear above, 3rr isn't strictly limited by time; it's a bright line rule. Slow edit warring, like what you were doing, still violates the policy.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 01:59, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I know that, but the final edit I was apparently blocked for was different to the previous edits. And I don't buy this 'slow edit warring' theory. On that basis I would ''never'' be allowed to edit any page more than once, and even a single edit can count as 3RR. Which is ridiculous, we expect a bit of give and take. And the other really, really, really bad thing is that the person edit warring me was actually Sarek, he was the one doing most of the reverts. And then ''he'' blocked me. ''He's not allowed to do that.'' Otherwise he can pop up on any of my edits anywhere in the Misplaced Pages and revert me and then block me, which is actually what he did here. He can't deliberately make an edit war with me and then block me, people have lost their administrator bits for less than that before.- <small>]</small> 02:33, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| <-- Wolf, you referenced an RFC. Where was that?]] 02:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :]--] (]) 02:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :: Thanks Sarek. Don't agree with Wolf's interpretation, I'm afraid. ]] 02:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::That's OK, you can ban anyone you disagree with, because you're an administrator!!!! That's right isn't it? And if an administrator breaks the rules, as here, nothings happens. If a user doesn't actually break any rule, then they get banned! I wasn't actually 3RR, I had not been warned on this page, and I was edit warred and then banned by an admin. How is that not corrupt?- <small>]</small> 03:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::The point of 3RR is that it's supposed to damp out changes to pages, not that it's supposed to allow admins to chose the 'right' version. I was not ''rapidly'' editing pages, making changes to pages is the normal way consensus forms. This slow edit warring idea is a heap of shit.- <small>]</small> 03:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| ===Word articles=== | |||
| ::::Sarek wrote "Policy pages", and never mentioned 3RR, so presumably the block was also for the editing at ] and ]. Sorry, but there it is. (being rude to everyone for the last 3 days, in talkpages and editsummaries, probably didn't help). | |||
| ::::One positive step, might be to make an honest attempt at getting back to the actual discussion topic, in a polite way. E.g. I left you a long answer at ], that I'm still interested in your thoughts on. Really! | |||
| :::: The reality is that many editors agree with each other, about something to do with "notable words", and they're probably not ''all'' idiots! It takes a courageous person to stick to their beliefs, but it takes an even more courageous person to admit that perhaps their beliefs, were only opinions.. | |||
| ::::My gums hurt like heck (not quite at hell-scape levels). First cavity-fillings in my life, today. So take everything I write today with a grain of salt. And floss regularly. -- ] (]) 04:22, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::There's probably no way to define what notable means in this context. The Encyclopedia Britannica actually has very few words in it. Apart from any logical/encyclopedic reasons for it, they don't want to write the same topic multiple times in different languages, so they translate the encyclopedia from English into multiple languages. Clearly any content that doesn't translate would be a significant problem for them, so they deliberately avoid non translatable articles which rules out articles written to describe multiple meanings of words. That also means they have little lexicography, except in linguistic articles. | |||
| :::::I had a look at your table, and the big problem with it is that it concentrates on knowledge and information; the difference between encyclopedias and dictionaries are largely to do with presentation and organization (depth will vary between particular reference works so it's not an inherent difference, but is nearly always deeper in encyclopedias). By arranging the information in encyclopedic form it becomes portable between languages, because concepts are far, far more general than words. | |||
| :::::So saying that an article can be about a word ''should be'' totally wrong. At most it should be about a ''meaning'' of a word, otherwise taken to its logical conclusion it's just an essay-style dictionary entry (which actually many people are quite happy with for many articles, but taken to the logical conclusion everywhere in the wiki you to end up with the wikipedia being an essay style dictionary instead of an encyclopedia). I mean, if the topic is the word, then the article has to cover all aspects of that word, which will include every meaning. So if we take the meaning but even then... one article per meaning, if taken to its logical conclusion turns back into a dictionary but with an entry per definition/usage rather than an entry per word, but it comes to the same thing, you're just laying it out very slightly differently, but it's exactly the same- you end up with an encyclopedic dictionary in fact. | |||
| :::::So you don't really have much choice. Articles on words, if allowed, and if taken to the logical conclusion ends up with badness; it's no longer an encyclopedia, it's either a dictionary or an encyclopedic dictionary. Or a mixture... I'll come to that in a minute. | |||
| :::::And I think we have to assume that the Misplaced Pages, over time, is very definitely going to take ''everything'' to its absolute logical conclusion, people will just keep adding and polishing and growing until each article covers the topic, and probably then some more on top. There doesn't seem to be an end point. | |||
| :::::Mixing things... that's what people are trying to do, but if you try to do a mix it doesn't work out well at all. The issues are that the content has to go ''somewhere'', and it groups more easily conceptually than by word... but then you've got both going on so where do you draw the line between word and thing??? You just don't know. Does most of the stuff about salad go in rocket or under eruca sativa, or both, or elsewhere? You could try to come up with some arbitrary scheme and put cross references everywhere, but then it's arbitrary. In an encyclopedia you do sometimes get this problem a bit, but it's much, much easier to know where to put things. As I understand it, encyclopedias were invented to solve this exact problem in fact. By grouping things by logical conceptual type, the organisational sorting is much more stable. | |||
| :::::I think that people must have tried to expand dictionaries and just failed. You end up with loads of content forks or you end up not knowing what the right place is. This is also why general-purpose encyclopedic dictionaries if you've ever read one are a bit clumsy. They're sort of better than a dictionary, but you keep getting sent off to other articles (synonyms in particular are very problematic). | |||
| :::::So an Encyclopedia cum dictionary cum encyclopedic dictionary really doesn't hang together. You have to pick one but then you're a rules nazi and everyone hates you. :-) | |||
| :::::But 5P is clear, it says that the wikipedia is an ''encyclopedia'', and Benoit says that encyclopedia articles ''are'' translatable, and translatable rules out word articles really pretty much, there might be the odd one that survives translation into any language, but that's going to be rare indeed. | |||
| :::::And, unfortunately that's also the problem with favorite stuff, lexicography, in encyclopedia articles, as it refers to the words, so the words don't translate ;-(. Dictionaries/encyclopedic dictionaries do include lexicography though. | |||
| :::::I honestly don't really see any way out. The best thing is just to keep dictionaries and encyclopedia completely separate in different wikis and link between them. I did wonder whether the wikis could be merged, with different articles for words than encyclopedia articles, but it doesn't seem to help, the policies need to be completely different and we can already link between the two (with a few minor issues with soft redirects that hopefully the system guys will sort out eventually). I also wondered whether doing stuff like sticking (word) on the end like ] had mileage, but again you end up with duplicating the Wiktionaries policies, and they have problems as well with their policies that are, if anything, worse than the Misplaced Pages's.- <small>]</small> 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::The policy issues are probably also why we don't have any FA quality word articles; they automagically ''fail'' a whole slew of encyclopedic policies!- <small>]</small> 06:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I had a look at feeeeshboys stuff but he's not understood the primary points at all, it's about how things are laid out, the mapping to words is still there in encyclopedia, but the information is arranged by concept, not word. And in an encyclopedia even a thing, is really a concept. The article ] is about the idea of the place called London, which hopefully has relationships to the real stuff on the ground. It's not about the word London.- <small>]</small> 07:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Before cast anymore aspersions, you might want to read the ] discussion.]] 03:49, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
| === Socking === | |||
| Please don't do it again.— ''']]<sup> ]</sup>''' 06:48, 26 August 2010 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 19:56, 10 December 2024
Nomination for deletion of Template:Supersonic fuel efficiency
Template:Supersonic fuel efficiency has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. MilborneOne (talk)
Viewing instrument
You defended this list’s existence as encyclopedic, attacking those who attacked you, and you implied that you could and would fix the problems. 15 years it’s been unsourced. If you’re a serious person, you should fix the problems you create. Please source this. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- @Bearian, please see Special:Contributions/Wolfkeeper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 10 December 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)